Standing Committee A

[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]

Traffic Management Bill

New Clause 2 - Works to motorways and trunk roads

'The Highways Agency shall carry out any works to motorways and trunk roads entailing the closure or narrowing of lanes after 8 pm and before 6 am or at weekends.'.—[Mr. Redwood.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed [5 February], That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

David Jamieson: May I first thank you, Miss Begg, and welcome you back to the Committee? This may or may not be the Committee's last sitting—we will see how progress goes. I hope that the fact that we did not sit this morning accommodated the needs of the members of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made interesting points on Second Reading, some of which had considerable merit. I hope that this sitting of the Committee will not prove too much of a disappointment to him. A discussion of some of the issues that he has raised will be very helpful.
 New clause 2 would require the Highways Agency to carry out any works to motorways and trunk roads entailing the closure or narrowing of lanes after 8 pm and before 6 am or at weekends. We share the idea of wanting to minimise the amount of disruption caused by roadworks for the general benefit of all road users. That is the Bill's ambition. Although only 10 per cent. of congestion on the strategic network is caused by roadworks, the Highways Agency, like the right hon. Gentleman, is keen to minimise disruption caused by those roadworks. The agency has targets within its business plan to avoid wherever possible carrying out roadworks at peak times. It aims to ensure that at least 98.5 per cent. of lanes are available in peak hours. Although the intention of the new clause is to minimise the disruption in relation to roadworks, the proposals are not practical and could, in some cases, have the opposite effect to that which is desired by the mover of the new clause. 
 Network occupancy and the traffic management arrangements for maintenance and improvement schemes are planned to minimise disruption to traffic, avoid conflict between adjacent schemes and ensure safety for both road users and the work force. I mention the work force, because there are an alarming 
 number of incidents involving those working on the roads being killed and injured. We must look after the interests of those working on the roads as well. 
 By its very nature, routine maintenance, such as safety fence repairs and gully emptying, is carried out mainly at night or at other times when traffic flows are low. Simple resurfacing schemes—for example, resurfacing lane one—can also be done at night, because lane closures for such work are relatively easy to install and remove. 
 Other works cannot be undertaken solely at night. A good example is the replacement of central reservation bridge piers carried out recently on the M6 in Cheshire. This required temporary propping of the bridge deck to allow traffic to continue to use the bridge over the M6. This required barriers to prevent vehicle impact with the temporary props and their potential collapse. It is totally impractical, unsafe and expensive to install and remove the traffic management and the propping overnight. That would be vastly expensive, and it is doubtful whether the work could take place at all. 
 When the Highways Agency has to occupy the carriageway, it uses narrow lanes wherever possible—often keeping three narrow lanes on a normal three-lane motorway. It has to balance the need to maintain capacity with the need to provide the necessary clearances for working space and the health and safety of the work force on the road. Narrow lanes have the effect of hemming in drivers, reducing speeds and improving the safety of road users and work force. To have fixed times for carrying out works enshrined in legislation, as the new clause would do, is impractical. The timing should take account of the nature of the work, the traffic flow patterns on the individual route, the number of lanes available and other considerations such as special events like major football matches or other events that may be taking place in the area. 
 On our busiest motorways, 8 pm may be too early and 6 pm too late. For example, Manchester airport asks for any closures to be lifted by 4 am in the morning, because 4 to 5 am is the busiest time for people approaching the airport. That pattern may be true in other areas as well. Peak traffic flows at weekends can be as high as those on week days, but occur at different times of the day. On some routes, particularly those subject to seasonal variations such as those in my part of the world—and if anyone is thinking of taking a holiday, I assure them that Devon and Cornwall are extremely attractive places to visit if they are not contemplating a holiday abroad this year—or Blackpool, the Lake district and other areas, the highest flows are on Fridays and Sunday afternoons and sometimes the evenings. 
 In my constituency from late July to early September, heavy traffic from the north, the midlands and London pours through at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning, as people head towards the surfing waves of Cornwall. The proposals would be impractical for routes such as the A30 or the A38 into the west country. 
 I hope that the right hon. Member for Wokingham is reassured that the Government are being proactive in tackling that sort of congestion. It is something that the Government and the Highways Agency—our agent in this work—consider a very serious issue. To have fixed times, as proposed in the new clause, would be impractical and could have the opposite effect from that desired.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for his considered reply. He has a good point on the question of bridge piers and the need for bridge strengthening. I am not so persuaded by his other arguments. I am naturally pleased that he agrees that minimising the disruption caused by lane closures and road closures at busy times of the day is an important aim and something that the Highways Agency should take into account when deciding what works to undertake and when to do them. I trust that that means that he will redouble his enthusiasm for limiting the number of lane closures and road closures at busy times of day in pursuit of our shared aim of reducing congestion.
 The Minister says that 8 pm might be too early to start road works in the evening, and 6 pm too late to cease them in the morning. Of course, that is true: I was trying to come up with a judgment of Solomon, leaving enough time for the roadworks to be carried out without impinging on the busy times of day. I think that the Minister would agree that in most cases, on most motorways and trunk roads, the busiest hours are those of the morning and evening peak. The morning peak starts just after 6 am and the evening peak usually subsides before 8 pm. I would defend those hours as a balance between what is needed to provide reasonable access to the highway for those maintaining and repairing it, and those using it to keep the wheels of commerce and activity turning through the busy times of the working week. 
 The Minister is right that, on a limited number of holiday routes in the UK at busy times of the year, the flows can be high at the weekend. I trust that the Highways Agency would take that fully into account when deciding on weekend working across its network. What I hoped to put into law was a requirement that the times that are very busy on most roads—the morning, evening and, sometimes, middle-of-the-day peaks in the working week—should be protected and that holiday periods should be left to the agency's judgment.

David Jamieson: On flexibility, it may be helpful to point out that the Highways Agency often ceases all roadworks at all times of the day—if possible and if not emergency work—in the summer when it expects heavy traffic, particularly in the south-west, for the very reason that the roads are heavily used nearly 24 hours a day.

John Redwood: I am pleased to hear that, but there could be more progress in that direction. I am sure that all of us who take holidays in the United Kingdom have had experiences from time to time that disprove that anecdotally.
 My new clause would not stop the Highways Agency from protecting weekend busy times at holiday destinations; indeed, I would urge it to do so. I thought that such a suggestion would be more difficult to embody in law, as we would need to define the busy holiday destination roads. That would cause all sorts of difficulties in drafting and debating. Avoiding roadworks on busy holiday roads would be a welcome addition to my proposal, but it would be more difficult to incorporate in legislation. 
 In view of what the Minister said, I would like to think further about the new clause and perhaps bring it back with drafting that reflects his good point about bridges, but still protects the rest of the network from unnecessary road repairs at busy times of the working week. I remain very much of the view that there are still examples of the rules not being observed by the Highways Agency in carrying out its works and that we would have less congestion if they were observed. If we offered legislative guidance, it would make it more likely that they would be followed. 
 In spite of the good counter-examples that the Minister has given, most of us know from our experience that most congestion occurs at peak hours in the working week that lie outside the normal hours of darkness between 8 pm and 6 am. Just as the main runway at Heathrow would normally be resurfaced at night and not during the working day, so the main trunk roads, which are such important commercial arteries, should be similarly treated. Therefore, as I should like to improve the new clause even more in the hope that it might attract the Minister's support. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3 - Bus lanes

'All bus lanes—
(a) shall be open to use by cycles, motorcycles, licensed taxis and invalid vehicles; and
(b) shall be operable as bus lanes and closed to traffic other than that specified in paragraph (a) only during those periods when local buses are timetabled to operate.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 14—Use of bus lanes—
 'Any motor vehicle with two or more passengers shall be entitled at any time to use any carriageway marked out as a bus lane.'.

John Redwood: The Government and many local councils throughout the country have been pleased to introduce a large number of bus priority lanes. Often
 they have been introduced on fairly narrow roads, making it more difficult for the overwhelming number of other vehicles using the highway to do so safely and easily, given the amount of space demarked from their use by the bus lane. The purpose of the new clause is not to undermine the idea of bus lanes, but to see whether we can strike a better balance in order to get more use out of bus-lane capacity without getting in the way of the buses, thereby allowing freer passage for other vehicles trying to use the highway when there is no conflict with the buses.
 All too often when we travel around the crowded streets and roads of our country, we see empty bus lanes and very full other-vehicle lanes. Throughout much of the working day, traffic in our big towns and cities moves at very slow speeds or is at a standstill in the small remaining part of the carriageway demarked for general vehicle use, while, running alongside, are empty bus lanes that occupy one third or one half of the total carriageway area available on a typical relatively narrow street or road. 
 I have made two proposals that I hope will be unobjectionable. They should meet the requirements of those who value bus priority through bus lanes, while going some way to creating a better balance in use of the road, which frees capacity for motor vehicles. 
 The first of those ideas, proposed new paragraph (b), is particularly difficult to object to. It states that the bus lane should operate as a preferred lane for buses only at times of the day when buses are running. I really think that it would be a very inventive official or Minister who came up with a counter-proposal to that common-sense idea. All too often in our towns and cities, bus lanes clutter up a large amount of road space when there are no bus services running. It would seem to me to be a kindness to other road users to allow them to stray into that part of the carriageway if it is convenient and safe for them to do so. It will increase the capacity of the road.

David Wilshire: My right hon. Friend has either the good fortune or the misfortune to do what I do regularly, which is to go up and down the M4 to his constituency. Has he had the experience that I have had when, late at night, an accident causes a huge traffic jam into London and absolutely no one is using the bus lane while chaos reigns in the other two lanes?

John Redwood: I have experienced those unhappy circumstances and it is an obvious case where use of the bus lane would ease the tensions of other road users who are not directly caught up in the accident that my hon. Friend describes.
 The M4 bus lane is a classic example of its kind. Many of us bitterly oppose it. We think that it is bizarre to put the bus lane into the fast, rather than the slow, lane of the motorway and we query how much use of the lane buses actually make—from our own observations, not a great deal. Quite often when I use the M4, the other vehicle lanes are very crowded and the traffic is moving well below the normal safe speed 
 because of the congestion. I rarely see a bus using the bus lane. Occasionally, when I have seen one, there have been practically no people on it. I cannot remember ever seeing several crowded buses during the time it takes to traverse that section of the M4. 
 I often see taxis that are empty apart from their drivers. I assume that they are regular taxi cabs that will at some point pick up a fare-paying passenger, although I am not sure whether the detection system can tell the difference between a regular taxi with a proper licence that plies for trade or hon. Members who have bought a taxi in order to get around more easily. Buying a taxi for one's own use, but perhaps not going to all the trouble of getting a licence, is one way of escaping the peril of commuting.

David Wilshire: I might be able to help my right hon. Friend. Significant numbers of genuine black cab drivers prefer not to hang around in the pound at Heathrow waiting for hours for a fare and instead choose to return to London. Does he agree that a taxi that is returning to London empty, rather than taking a passenger, is misusing the bus and taxi lane?

John Redwood: I value my friendly relations with London's superb cabbies, and with the London mayoral elections approaching I would not dare venture into such dangerous territory. I understand my hon. Friend's logic, but I am not sure that I find the politics as attractive as he does.
 If there is no bus service running at a certain time of day, evening or night, surely bus lanes should revert to general use to ease the problem of insufficient capacity on the roads for other vehicles.

Greg Knight: Does the much-publicised case two years ago, when the Prime Minister seemed to think that his ministerial car could use the bus lane, not show that the proposal should have the Ministers' support?

John Redwood: That is a very attractive proposition. I do not think that the Prime Minister has done it again, of course; he obviously felt that there were some difficulties in doing it, although it was rational because there were no buses using the bus lane. On that occasion, I admired the Prime Minister's rationality, although I could not give him any marks for political assiduity as it was offensive to all other road users who were unable to avail themselves of police protection and use the bus lane.
 Paragraph (a) of new clause 3 attempts to take the Minister a bit further. I am sure he can deliver some counter-arguments, but I hope that he will not because it is another well intentioned proposal that is designed to make life easier for other road users and to increase the capacity of our inadequate road system without major new road construction. Paragraph (a) says that the bus lane will be 
''open to use by cycles, motorcycles, licensed taxis and invalid vehicles'', 
each of which is a slightly different case. 
 If there is a classic bus lane close to the pavement and gutter and the other vehicle lane is in the middle of the road, it is difficult to tell a cyclist to proceed 
 somewhere near the line demarcating the edge of the bus lane, but nearer to the centre of the road than to the edge of the road. As an occasional cyclist, I do not feel comfortable stuck out near the middle of the road while paying great attention to the bus lane marking. Keeping one's eye partially on the kerb is easier, and one has a greater sense of stability cycling near the kerb, although not quite in the gutter because one would then fall into the drains and potholes that tend to congregate at the very edge of the road. 
 Cyclists feel safe if they are near the road edge, unless they wish to pull out to execute a right turn. Doing that is always hazardous on a bicycle, but best done according to the cycling proficiency and the highway code methods of looking behind, signalling and then pulling across traffic when safe to do so. If only more cyclists did that, we would have safer cycling. Cyclists are better off if they choose to be nearer the edge of the highway and I make the case for them to be there. 
 I am sure that there are many fine and good motor cyclists. However, all of us motorists from time to time come across motor cyclists who believe that the advantage of the motor cycle is in weaving in and out of the densely populated car and other vehicle lane, trying to avoid, I trust, the wing mirrors as they squeeze through narrow gaps and jump ahead of the largely stationary traffic in busy towns and cities. I can understand why motor cyclists wish to do that: they have the advantage of nimbleness, speed and acceleration, and are frustrated by the delays with normal vehicles and wish to reach their destinations more quickly. Motor cyclists could do that under my scheme if they were allowed to use the bus lane in a safe and sensible way. Given that motor cycles are more flexible, more nimble and narrower than buses, and that most of them have much higher acceleration, they should not get in the way of buses or impede their flow. My proposals would make it much easier for motor cyclists to use their natural advantages on the road and would avoid quite so many of the unfortunate exchanges between motor cyclists and drivers over clashes with wing mirrors that we increasingly see on our congested roads.

Claire Ward: The right hon. Gentleman argues that motor cycles will not impede the route of buses on the grounds that they are faster vehicles that are more likely to accelerate and less likely to be in the way. Surely that cannot also apply to cyclists, who cannot ride as fast as a bus or get out of the way as quickly as a motor cycle. They may therefore restrict the access of buses on bus lanes and perhaps be more likely to cause accidents.

John Redwood: The hon. Lady is quite right. The cycle is a different case from the motor cycle, as I tried to explain. She is also right that the push bike will at times delay a bus just as surely as it delays all traffic when there is a conflict between itself and any vehicle with an engine, which has more speed and better acceleration. The question is whether it is safer for
 cyclists to be either closer to the kerb edge and in disagreement with a bus only from time to time, or towards the middle of the road and in potential conflict with buses, which would then be on the inside of the cycle, and a large number of other vehicles on the offside of the cycle, towards the centre of the carriageway. It is my submission that it would be considerably safer for the cyclist to have to watch out for only a limited number of buses coming on the offside of the cycle, rather than being sandwiched between buses on the nearside and other vehicles on the offside.
 That is why I, as a cyclist, find it worrying and dangerous to cycle just to the offside of the edge of the bus lane, because when one is in busy traffic on a bicycle, one can get horribly sandwiched. If there is a large lorry on the cyclist's offside, taking up almost the full width of the other vehicle carriageway, and a large bus on the nearside, it is possible that neither may give way to the bicycle. That puts the cyclist in an extremely exposed and dangerous position. There are far fewer chances of conflict if the cyclist is near the edge of the highway and only has to think about the more limited number of buses coming along the offside. 
 I therefore cannot accept the point made by the hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) against my argument, but I fully accept her case that it is always dangerous being a cyclist when there are other large vehicles on the road. My intention in tabling the new clause was to try to minimise the number of potential conflicts by reducing the number of vehicles to which the bicycle comes into proximity. 
 I am leaving it to the cyclist to make the choice. If they can choose whether to use either the whole bus lane or the other vehicle lane, they have much more flexibility to get out of the way of whatever dangerous vehicle might be coming up too fast or posing a threat to them on the highway, whereas if they are debarred from the bus lane their options are halved.

Claire Ward: I seek clarification. The new clause includes the phrase:
''cycles, motorcycles, licensed taxis and invalid vehicles.'' 
Would that also include the cycle vehicles—a bit like a passenger tricycle—that operate around London? I do not know what their official name is, but does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that they would be included in his definition of cycles?

John Redwood: I would be very happy for cycles or licensed taxis, whichever is appropriate, to encompass tricycles, rickshaws or whatever style of vehicle the hon. Lady has in mind. Legal draftsmen would tell us whether they could be subsumed into the categories that I have included. If they could not, then I would be happy to accept an amendment that explicitly defined and included them because similar arguments could be applied to more than one of the categories that I am arguing case by case.
 The case for licensed taxis to use the bus lane seems to me to be exceptionally strong. The first part of that case is that the licensed taxi is a public service vehicle plying for hire in the same way as the pay bus, although it takes fewer passengers at any given time. 
 The taxi is public transport, offering an alternative to the privately owned car that will need parking during the day when people reach their journey's end. To facilitate that public service, the taxi should be offered the same facilities as the bus. 
 That proposition is neither revolutionary nor conservative, but is a cross-party proposition that has already been applied in many towns and cities in the UK where taxis are permitted to use bus lanes. However, there are a large number of anomalies in its application. Within the same city, I have found lanes that taxis can and cannot use, and I believe that there are also variations in the times when the taxis can use those reserved lanes. I want a system defined in national legislation in which, if there were such reserved lanes, they would accommodate all public service vehicles, so that the taxis would have as much right to use them as buses. That would increase the utilisation of those lanes. 
 The second reason why I think that a taxi should be allowed to use the bus lane relates to the normal position of the bus lane on the road. The bus lane is normally the inside lane. Taxis plying for hire on the streets of towns and cities need to pull into the kerb to pick up their fare-paying passengers when they are hailed. That is dangerous or difficult if the taxi is not allowed in the bus lane. In practice, unless there are cameras that would deter the taxi driver, he or she often takes a risk and drives across into the bus lane to pick up the fare-paying passenger before any officer stops him or her doing it. Stopping in the middle part of the carriageway to pick up a fare-paying passenger causes enormous chaos on the road and means that the passenger has to cross the bus lane. If they try to do that when a bus is coming along, they could get stranded in the middle, with a bus on one side and the people in the traffic on the other side getting rather irritated by the delay caused by the taxi stopping in the middle of the road. Because of the nature of the taxi's trade, it would be much more sensible for it to use the kerbside lane in most cases. Certainly, taxis are allowed to stop there briefly to pick up a passenger in relative safety. 
 The fourth category is invalid vehicles. Again, I stress that I am offering a choice. I am not saying that an invalid vehicle would have to use the bus lane in all circumstances, but given the wish of many of us to make travelling as easy as possible for people who need special assistance, it would be good to give such people the freedom and the choice as to whether to use the bus lane. That has the advantage that it is closer to the kerb, there is not so much hazard and they would not be in conflict with so many other vehicles. Of course, if they wanted to be in the other vehicle lane, they would be entitled to do so under my proposal. 
 I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to the proposal and that he appreciates that paragraph (b) could stand without any argument against it because if no buses wanted to use a bus lane, we would be acting like the dog in the manger if we did not let other vehicles use it. There are different but strong arguments in each case as to why the four types of vehicle that I have described, with the possible 
 addition of the tricycle rickshaw suggested by the hon. Member for Watford, should be allowed to use the privileged lane that is for buses. 
 I support the excellent proposal standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight). Their new clause 14 is grouped with my new clause 3. They propose to extend the advantages of the bus lane to those indulging in car sharing. My right hon. Friend will doubtless make a powerful case for that. It is another interesting category that falls between the green objectives of more public transport and the common-sense points that I have made about proper road utilisation. It would be a welcome addition to new clause 3 and it gives me great pleasure to support it.

Greg Knight: I rise primarily to speak to new clause 14. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I should like to hear the Minister's thinking on the scope of the new clause. I do not know how long this country has had bus lanes, but I imagine that it must be 25 or 30 years since they were introduced. Someone whom I am not supposed to see is nodding his head, so I presume that I am dating the history about right. When bus lanes were introduced, that innovation was sold to the public as a way to decrease pollution by allowing buses to have quicker access to and egress from city centres. The argument went that if people either parked their car or did not take their car out at all and caught the bus, they would find that the bus gets through the traffic quicker because it uses a dedicated bus lane, and that that was the green or environmentally friendly way to travel.
 However, bus lanes have not worked as we were told that they would. I think that the reason is that in many city centres during the rush hour, a third of the road capacity in one direction and, in some cases, up to half the road capacity is taken up with a bus lane. All that happens is that those who, for various reasons, have to use their car sit in longer traffic queues, which increases pollution levels along with the anger and frustration. Given that bus lanes do not work as we were told 25 or so years ago that they would, we must consider the rules surrounding their operation to see whether we can make them work better. 
 New clause 14, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham astutely worked out for himself, is designed to encourage car sharing. This is not a unique or new proposition. It is encouraged in many states in the United States of America, where a similar provision is in place. If someone decides to go with another motorist in his or her car, they are then entitled to use a particular lane, the use of which is denied to that person if they are in a motor vehicle travelling alone. There is a real incentive to share one's journey with someone else. What is wrong with us introducing that proposition into this country?

Brian White: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of some of the abuses that happened in the United States when
 such schemes were introduced, which have increased the running costs and enforcement problems for the law enforcement agencies.

Greg Knight: I am not quite sure to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. If it is to the apocryphal stories of people putting ventriloquists' dolls in their car so that from the back it looks like a passenger, on my many visits to the United States I have never seen that happen. What he appeared to be arguing was that it would be difficult to police. It is not difficult to police now. Some buses have cameras fitted, to photograph vehicles transgressing the law. In some counties we still have police patrolling our roads. The point he is making is one of enforcement, but whatever example he can quote, it cannot invalidate the idea of encouraging lane sharing. I would like to see that tried in the UK.
 I know many families where the mother will take the child to school by car, because she fears for the safety of a child of tender age on a public transport bus. She is worried that the child will be abducted. Being a good parent, she wants to see the child dropped off and collected at the school gate. One can understand why a good parent could take that view. However, the new clause would encourage parents to get together to share the transport. What could be the objection to that? Perhaps, for the first time in our proceedings, the Minister will say that there is no argument against a new clause and that he intends to accept it into the Bill? I hope that that is what we shall hear.

John Thurso: I listened to the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Wokingham in respect of new clause 3 and had considerable sympathy with them. I would be happy to support them. He put forward an extremely good argument for all of the four categories that he mentioned in paragraph (a), although I might have reservations about how (b) might be enforced.
 The argument was slightly spoiled by the remarks of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, because I detected in his remarks a tone, or undertone, that was somewhat anti-bus. He said that people have to use their cars. Some people may have to use their cars, but the real problem is that many people choose to use their cars. Certainly the current rate of growth in traffic is unsustainable and we will not be able to build our way out of it; we will not be able to solve the problem with more roads and more cars upon them. 
 In our cities, where the major areas of congestion are, buses—buses that operate smoothly, regularly and efficiently—are one of the principal answers. To encourage people to move from using their car by choice to using buses by choice will involve offering a bus service that is reliable, reasonably quick and does not get held up in traffic—hence the argument for bus lanes. The car is the major competitor of the bus. Supporting the new clause of the right hon. Member for Wokingham does not undermine my belief that—
 apart from in small but sensible exceptions—bus lanes should be kept clear for buses so that they can operate as the proper and efficient alternative to the car.

David Jamieson: I am attracted to the idea behind the proposals but I am not attracted to the centralising tendencies of the two main Opposition parties. Most of what is contained in the proposals is possible to achieve, but it should be implemented by local authorities taking local circumstances into account. The traffic regulation orders made by local authorities to designate bus lanes may allow other classes of vehicles such as taxis and motor cycles to use them. We believe that decisions about the classes of vehicles that may or may not use bus lanes should be left to the discretion of local authorities, taking into account their local transport plans and the objectives they had in creating particular the bus lanes.
 There is some guidance from the Department called ''Keeping Buses Moving''. That guidance might pre-date this Government, or it may have been issued in our early days. However, it is available for local authorities. 
 Cycles are generally allowed to use what are known as ''with-flow'' bus lanes. The one exception is when the authority wishes to ban them for safety reasons. That would require a special signed authorisation from my Department, and the authority would need to demonstrate why cyclists should be excluded.

Greg Knight: Opposition Members have not yet seen the guidance that the Minister brandished. If a local authority wished to adopt the scope of new clause 14, would that go against any part of that guidance?

David Jamieson: I believe that it would be possible for a local authority to introduce high occupancy lanes. That may be within the scope of the measures in the new clause. Again, it is for local authorities to decide whether that is appropriate and it meets their ambition to keep the buses moving.
 On the point that was made by the hon. Member for (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), it is true that people occasionally need to use their cars. However, many people—including about 40 per cent. of my constituents—have no car. They have no choice but to use the bus. It is extremely difficult to get around many cities at busy times of the day other than by public transport because there are few places to park and cars are clogging up the roads. 
 The authorities can also exclude cycles from contraflow bus lanes for safety reasons. There are a few of those in London and other places. The right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned motor cycles. We must use good sense and balance the needs of one road user against those of another. Cyclists have had concerns about sharing lanes with fast moving motor cycles. They have perceived that as a considerable hazard. The right hon. Gentleman is a cyclist so he may appreciate that. That matter should not be resolved in primary legislation. Local authorities should make decisions about that. They should have the flexibility to change things if they are not working 
 out. If a particular scheme is not operating properly, there needs to be the flexibility to allow it to be altered if that is necessary. 
 Allowing motor cycles into bus lanes raises concerns not only for cyclists but for pedestrians. Before revising the guidance we await the results of trials in London where motor cycles were allowed into bus lanes. It would be premature to act now without having seen the results of that trial. 
 I can tell the right hon. Member for Wokingham that some years ago my Department set up an advisory group on motor cycling, which has brought in many of the interests of the motor cycling world and a wide range of views. A sub-group of that group is considering motor cycles in bus lanes, and will make some recommendations shortly. In the summer, or just after, we hope to have those recommendations, and motor cycles in bus lanes will be one of the issues that it will address.

John Thurso: The Minister said that both Opposition parties have centrist tendencies. The point is, however, that there is a presumption against such use of bus lanes and a local authority must actively promote the concept. Is it possible to consider the opposite, which is a presumption in favour but with a power for a local authority to ban such use if it thinks there is good reason to do so?

David Jamieson: The only presumption is that the local authority weighs up the issue carefully when introducing bus lanes. It considers safety and patterns of local use, listens to local people, consults them and does what is best for its area. Such decisions are best made not in Westminster or Whitehall, but in the town hall. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman suggests otherwise. Perhaps he has different views on local government powers than other Liberal Democrat Members, but I believe that local government, for all its sins, is best placed to make such decisions.

Christopher Chope: On motor cycles, the Minister said that a group of people are examining policy and that they will not report until the end of the summer, which will conveniently be after the Bill has been through both Houses. Can he request that committee to accelerate its deliberation on motor cycles in bus lanes so that we and the other place can be informed of its recommendations before the Bill is closed for discussion?

David Jamieson: It is not a committee as such, but an advisory group. A sub-group, mainly from the motor-cycling world, is considering some of the issues. I hope that some of its reports will be with us in the next eight to 10 weeks. That will inform further progress of the Bill.
 The amendment is unnecessary because it is within the gift of local authorities to do such things already. Adding it would remove considerable flexibility from local authorities. The advisory group on motor cycling will give recommendations and advice, which I hope will be subsumed into a future document, such as the 
 one that I mentioned. We will then be able to use that for advice and guidance for local authorities. However, to provide for that in the Bill would be a mistake, not just because the advisory group is meeting, but because it would take away the discretion of local authorities to make their own decisions. 
 Generally, it is advisable for users of invalid carriages to use footways rather than carriageways where traffic speeds are much greater. Where bus lanes are in operation, it is not a good idea to encourage such small and slow moving vehicles to use bus lanes. Apart from the danger of them being ridden over because bus drivers cannot see them in their mirrors, moving as they do at a maximum speed of 8 mph, they would impede the flow of traffic behind them. 
 The more other vehicles are allowed to use bus lanes, the more their purpose becomes devalued. New clause 14 would turn all bus lanes into high-occupancy vehicle lanes, which could lead to enforcement problems. Although cameras can be used to distinguish between buses and other vehicles, they cannot be used to identify how many passengers are in a vehicle. That is why enforcement of the high-occupancy vehicle lanes in Leeds and south Gloucester relies on police presence and the ability to stop vehicles contravening the rules of high-occupancy vehicle lanes. 
 The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned the high-occupancy lanes operating in the United States. The lanes in this country are somewhat different from those in the States, which tend to be additional lanes constructed on the freeways and physically segregated from the main highway. There is not the space to do that in most of our cities, whereas there is slightly more landmass in the United States and, as a result of having more land to use, it tends to have wider highways and roads. The additional lanes do not take space away from other road users, but make a special space available for the use of high-occupancy vehicles. There are issues with policing those lanes, which could present further problems.

Christopher Chope: The Minister talks about the difficulty of getting evidence. How was the Department for Transport able to obtain evidence to the effect that there was precisely 84 per cent. single occupancy on trips for commuters and business users? How was that evidence gathered?

David Jamieson: By roadside surveys carried out by people observing vehicles, but that was purely for the purposes of a survey. To enforce high-occupancy lanes, there would have to be police officers on each of those lanes surveying them at all appropriate times.
 The time of day when lanes could be used is common sense. There may be times when a bus lane going in one direction is critical. Many bus lanes are operational for bus-only use during certain times of the day, which is right. Very few lanes operate 24 hours a day and that is generally in areas where there is 24-hour-a-day movement of buses, which tends to be in the centre of our major cities. I envisage some difficulty with 
 introducing less flexibility because it is up to local authorities to make decisions to reflect local patterns of travel.

Greg Knight: The Minister's points are worthy of reflection and Opposition Members would like to do that. However, during our period of reflection, between the conclusion of the Committee and Report stage, perhaps he would put the bus lane guidance in the Library so that we can avail ourselves of what it contains before we return to discuss it in the House.

David Jamieson: The guidance may already be in the Library—it is not a private document—but if it is not we can place a copy there. I am sure that it will give the right hon. Gentleman many hours of happy bedside reading.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, although I am not persuaded by many of his arguments. His principal argument is a constitutional one. He said that this is a matter over which local government should have autonomy and that no autonomy should be reduced. I find that a bit odd coming from a Minister who has produced this Bill with the express intention of interfering with and overriding local authorities in the sensitive matter of traffic management.
 As someone who usually likes to increase the amount of local discretion and freedom, I have already confessed to the Minister that he has posed quite a challenge. I was able to support the principle of the Bill, because the aim is important. There are times when local authorities put other conflicting aims too high up the agenda, often wrongly in my view because they are not pursuing those aims sensibly or productively. On this occasion, however, I make an exception to my rule and go along with the idea of central guidance and direction in the form of legislation. That is why I welcome some parts of the Bill. If he thinks that I have a speck of dust in my local authority discretionary eye, he has a log in his, because the Bill proposes the introduction of traffic managers and that the Government introduce their own traffic managers if they think that the local authority is failing. That is a far more wide-ranging power than offering a little strengthened guidance and requirements on the use of additions to traffic management, like bus lanes. In due course, there will be similar arguments about traffic signals. 
 My proposals are modest. The Minister had no practical objection to limiting all bus lanes to the times when buses operate. It is so obvious that I hope, on reflection, he will think again and consider it a wise limitation to impose on a limited number of councils that have not understood the elementary point and are consequently making life more difficult for motorists. 
 I was not persuaded by the Minister's attempt to counter-argue the position of three of the four special categories I singled out for bus lane privilege treatment in paragraph (a). He did not deal with taxis. As the new clause offers road users the freedom to use the bus lane in addition to other parts of the carriageway—or even 
 the pavement in those cases that are entitled to use it—I cannot accept his argument that I am making life more difficult or more dangerous for those using bicycles or invalid carriages. 
 I was pleased to hear that the Minister is following with interest the proposed trials in London for motor cyclists to use bus lanes. That is encouraging news. It may mean that my new clause is a little ahead of his thinking and that we will get there in the end. I am sure the trials will discover that there are more advantages than disadvantages in that idea and that it will contribute to dealing with the inadequacy of our current traffic arrangements. 
 The argument that there is modest centralisation is not strong. There are powerful arguments, which I have put to the Committee, in favour of my proposal. The Minister made a good point about counter-flow bus lanes and I should like to incorporate that in my new clause. With the permission of the Committee, I might decide to split it in two. Paragraph (b) contains such a self-evidently easy proposition that we might get the Minister to accept it. So I want to return with alternative and improved proposals in the light of the Minister's slightly helpful, but not convincing, response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5 - Traffic signals with all red phases

'No authority shall be entitled to install or operate traffic signals with all red phases at road junctions where there is no hazard other than traffic.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 13—Traffic lights—
 'In exercising their network management duty, a local traffic authority shall be required to monitor all traffic lights in operation in their area and shall—
(a) ensure that all traffic lights operate on a traffic sensitive basis during non-rush hour periods;
(b) require that traffic lights are set to achieve the most expeditious flow of traffic and pedestrians at all times they are operational;
(c) require that unless there are good reasons for not so doing that traffic lights at junctions with low traffic volumes operate in amber warning mode in all directions during non-rush hour periods.'.

John Redwood: Until a few years ago, no one would have understood why new clause 5 would be necessary. All traffic lights that motorists or cyclists encountered on our highways had a simple form of operation which meant that there was always one free route across the junction showing green. In the normal four-way junction where two roads intersected, one road had priority for one phase and the other road had the alternate priority. There could be more complicated variations at larger junctions, but there was always a green phase for vehicles on one part of the junction
 that were approaching it from one or more directions and it was always phased in a way that allowed traffic to travel across the junction in relative safety.
 The idea to introduce, especially in London, all-red phases at junctions was, I think, to help pedestrians. I find that odd. My main way of getting around central London is on foot. I find it quickest and easiest to take advantage of the pavements now that we have such complicated and difficult public and private transport systems in central London. I have a strong interest in being able to get around as a pedestrian, as I want to get from A to B as quickly as my legs will carry will me. It is slightly irritating if there are long delays in crossing busy roads, just as motorists find it irritating if delays to their progress are too long because of the phasing of lights. 
 The only purpose of the all-red phase is to accommodate people who want to nip around the whole junction without having to pause halfway because the traffic is in the green phase. Very few, if any, pedestrians carry out that unlikely manoeuvre, so in normal circumstances that does not improve things for pedestrians, but it is a substantial deterioration in conditions for buses, cars and cyclists. Buses and cars sit at those junctions during the all-red phases, throwing out pollution, with their drivers and passengers getting more and more irritated. 
 Examples of very short green phases, especially in the centre of London, are legendary. The one that created the most spectacular traffic jam and deterioration of service was the signal controlling traffic coming out of the Mall into Trafalgar square, as only about two cars could proceed before it returned from green to red. In central London, there are many examples of all-red phases at junctions where no pedestrians cross any of the roads and where there are certainly none who want to cross two routes in the same phase, but lots of traffic sits at the lights, causing jams in the approach roads in both directions. 
 Some guidance is needed from the centre. In normal circumstances there must be a green phase for vehicles. The new clause refers to 
''no hazard other than traffic'' 
because red lights are sometimes needed for reasons other than traffic, such as military installations, train crossings and so on, which are exempt to secure people's protection in special circumstances. 
 I am told that I can crave the indulgence of the Committee in mentioning new clause 4, which has not been selected for consideration. I was hoping that hon. Members would consider the proposition that drivers should treat red traffic lights like stop signs when turning left at a light-controlled junction—a scheme that works in other parts of the world. Such an arrangement is perfectly safe, because the driver or cyclist has to come to a halt on the red phase of the light, as usual, but if careful examination of the road to the left shows them that no pedestrian is crossing the highway and that no traffic wants to cross the junction in that direction, they will be allowed to turn left without delay. That system would reduce the amount of traffic queuing at a light-controlled junction when 
 the red light brings other vehicles to a longer halt. It is a helpful idea that would ease congestion in our badly managed towns and city centres. 
 I support new clause 13, which draws attention to problems that are also highlighted in new clause 5. It is right that traffic lights should operate on a traffic-sensitive basis during non-rush hour periods. When Members of Parliament and other evening workers eventually return to their homes, it will often be late at night when no public transport is available, so will they have to use their motor vehicles. On their journey home, they have to stop at red light after red light along the main route that they are using, although there is no traffic from the side roads to benefit from the green phases. 
 There should be traffic-sensitive controls on the main routes, which should be green all the time unless a car or lorry coming from a side road triggers the traffic-sensitive meter and there is a short green phase to allow the vehicle to proceed safely on to the main route. That would save a lot of hassle and reduce the extra pollution caused by braking, stopping and starting again in a low gear. It would make life easier for people who work antisocial hours, such as Members of Parliament and others who use their cars to get home after their day's labours. I strongly support new clause 13.

Greg Knight: I agree with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, and I will be interested to hear the Minister's response to the points that he made about new clause 5. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support of new clause 13, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.
 I cannot think of a single factor that induces what I call road hyper-tension more than the annoyance of having to stop at a set of traffic lights at a junction on a main road only for no traffic to emerge from a minor road and no pedestrians to cross. That happens in every city in the UK every day during non-rush hour periods. It certainly happens on the streets around this building. Last week, I drove away at about 10.30 at night and carried out a spot check. Along with 11 other motorists, I was forced to stop at two junctions between this place and my home in Pimlico. No vehicles or pedestrians crossed the junctions. I added to the pollution in the area and wasted my time purely because the traffic lights had been left operating on a time basis rather than a traffic-sensitive basis. 
 Does the Minister know what percentage of traffic lights can operate in traffic-sensitive mode? The figure may not be 100 per cent., but it must be high. Those traffic lights should operate in that way during non-rush hour periods. That does not happen in city after city, and I would like to hear what he has to say about that. 
 New clause 13 has three parts. Paragraph (b) would deal with what I call the Mayor of London problem. As a precursor to the introduction of the congestion charge, someone, presumably with the Mayor's authority, arranged for traffic lights to stay on red for longer than normal. When the congestion charge was introduced, the lights were switched back so that 
 everyone would applaud the supposedly wonderful difference that the charge had made. I hope that the Minister will agree that traffic lights should never be operated in any other fashion than to ensure the most efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians at a junction. That might mean removing some local autonomy by requiring either in statute or in guidelines that traffic lights should operate only for their intended purpose. I hope that he will accept that there is a case for including new clause 13(b) in guidelines. 
 I shall now move on to new clause 13(c). I do not know whether the Minister has studied the situation in the many states in the USA that have innovative ideas about keeping traffic moving. We should embrace the ideas that work. In some states, traffic lights at junctions that are not unduly congested cease outside rush hour to act as traffic lights in the normal sense of the term. Instead, they flash an amber warning light in every direction, telling approaching motorists to approach junctions with care and to proceed only if nothing else is crossing. On the three or four occasions when I saw the system in operation, it was very successful at keeping the traffic moving, and as far as I am aware, it has not led to an increase in accidents. We could embrace that arrangement in this country, although perhaps initially only on an experimental basis. 
 I hope that the Minister will respond positively to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of new clause 13. His notes may say ''Resist'' and set out reasons for opposing the new clause, but I hope that he will be big and bold on this occasion and embrace the our positive, innovative ideas.

Tony McNulty: Someone said that we were at our best when we were at our boldest, but I suspect that I may have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman.
 New clause 5 would prevent local authorities from stopping all traffic at a junction so that a green pedestrian signal can be displayed in order to allow pedestrians to cross all arms of the junction at the same time. I should tell the right hon. Member for Wokingham that he and I start from the same position on this issue; he mentioned the safe and efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians, and the Government seek to combine the two. 
 As we discussed at the beginning of our consideration of part 2—it seems a long time ago—pedestrians are traffic, too, and they need to be given a safe and convenient method of crossing junctions. At many junctions, red and green pedestrian signals are the only way to provide a convenient and safe crossing. Wherever possible, local authorities endeavour to use what is called in the jargon a parallel pedestrian phase, which allows pedestrians to cross while non-conflicting vehicular movements are going on. However, such an arrangement is not possible at many junctions, and the only viable option is to use an all-red phase for vehicles. Of course, that will delay traffic, 
 but we have no alternative if we are strike the balance that I mentioned and give pedestrians a safe and convenient way to cross. One thinks particularly of cases in which vehicular movements into a particular arm of a junction would impede the safety of pedestrians if the traffic lights were working in parallel. 
 In some countries—I have experienced this myself—pedestrians and drivers are shown green signals at the same time, and the drivers are required to stop if pedestrians are crossing the junction in front of them. We do not believe that it would be safe to adopt that practice in the UK, however, because many junctions have audible and tactile signals for blind or partially sighted pedestrians, who rely on knowing that there are no conflicting movements when they are crossing. 
 Furthermore, guidance does not permit such a conflict between the movements of vehicles and pedestrians. Signalling pedestrians to cross when there are conflicting vehicle movements relies on drivers giving way, and the highway code says that they should do so when turning into a junction that pedestrians are crossing. However, hon. Members will know from their own experience that many drivers are not prepared to follow that advice. Many think that the all-red phase at junctions is unnecessarily long—I suspect that I do when I am driving—and that it results in greater congestion and delay. The answer, however, is for local authorities to reduce delays at junctions that use all-red traffic signal stages by ensuring that phasing is responsive and does not unnecessarily waste time. 
 With your indulgence, Miss Begg, I shall mention new clause 4, which was not selected for consideration, because it is germane to our discussion. I am not clear how relevant the traffic light systems are in countries where the right-hand turn phase—it would be the left-hand turn phase in this country—is invariably switched on. In my experience, France and the USA tend to use old-fashioned, time-limited, phased traffic signals rather than the more elaborately integrated signals that we have in this country. That might not be the case in central Paris—I am not entirely sure. None the less, for better or worse, I have no experience of countries where people drive on the same side of the road as we do. The Japanese do so, but I happily confess that I do not know what they do about left-hand turns. The system works in a limited way in the United States and in France, but we would not necessarily transplant it here simply for the sake of doing so. 
 Another difficulty with the phrasing of new clause 5 is that there is no definition of authority, as there is elsewhere in the Bill, which would be problematic. The right hon. Member for Wokingham cited London as one of his major concerns. London boroughs—if we mean London boroughs when we refer to authorities—are not currently entitled to install or operate traffic signals. That is done by TOCU, the transport operational command unit, in liaison with the boroughs. However, TOCU cannot be instructed by a London borough as to where to locate traffic lights and how to phase them. In that context, the 
 thrust of the new clause is therefore wholly inappropriate, which is largely why new clause 13 is not terribly useful either. 
 Rightly, many traffic control centres outside London are operated by the local authority, but the new clause would mean that we would be asking at least 33 of our highway authorities—in other words, the London boroughs and the City of London—to exercise their network management duty and to take account of a range of duties relating to traffic lights over which they have no control. It is incumbent on us, when imposing a statutory duty on a local highway authority, to start from the premise that it should be held accountable for what is in its gift and under its control. London boroughs and the City of London do not have control over the traffic light network. As an occasional motorist and an even more occasional pedestrian, I share the frustration of the right hon. Member for Wokingham, who described some of the things that happen. However, the proposals at (a), (b) and (c) are not entirely appropriate to the context of the Bill and the network management duty. 
 We said that we agree that the general objective of optimising the settings of traffic lights to improve traffic flow and network management is important. As the right hon. Gentleman conceded, by omission if by nothing else, most traffic lights in the UK are set to allocate green times proportionately to vehicle flow and pedestrian need. That is the balance about which we were talking. They can also have different settings to cater for rush hour and non-rush hour periods to achieve the most expeditious and safe passage of vehicle and pedestrian traffic. We anticipate including that advice in the guidance that we will issue under clause 18 on techniques for network management. The new clause, however, would make it a requirement that traffic lights should operate on flashing amber warning mode during non-rush hour times. The proposal would seriously compromise vehicle and pedestrian safety, and comes nowhere near to achieving the balance that we discussed. 
 Flashing amber already has a specific meaning at pelican crossings. The new clause would cause danger and be confused with another meaning at a junction. In any case, flashing amber would be unsuitable at many junctions at which buildings or road layouts prevent drivers from seeing whether other vehicles are approaching the junction.

Greg Knight: Might the Minister be prepared to reflect on the new clause with a view to introducing a pilot scheme in a limited area to see how confused motorists are by it, or whether it works well, as it does in other countries?

Tony McNulty: I suspect that, in the first instance, the answer is no. We would not dismiss such a scheme out of hand if local authorities reflected on it, decided that they might want to entertain it, and worked up a scheme that we could seriously entertain. I do not want to labour the point about local autonomy, but given
 that local authorities are charged with the network management duty, I fear such schemes will not be appropriate in a London context.
 As I said, the timing and phasing for authorities outside London will be in guidance, but if local authorities decide to proceed with the proposal, work it up, and reflect on it, we will consider it subsequently—but without any promise of endorsing it, running a pilot, using it on an experimental basis or otherwise. In the broader context, rather like the point made about high-occupancy vehicles, we need to get to the stage where anything that might appear to work, anything that authorities would like to explore further within the broadest confines of guidance, is certainly worth considering. I would not dismiss it out of hand were it to come from a local authority, but I do not see any necessity for it to be in the Bill or rooted in the duty to achieve the network management duty. That is what I want to resist.

David Wilshire: I am listening with care. If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that if a local authority were to give it some thought, he might consider it. If he is prepared to considering it, why does he not invite one or more local authorities to do it, rather than take a passive role and waiting to see what happens?

Tony McNulty: That comment bordered on the obtuse. It is not about taking a passive role. It is about getting to the stage where the most appropriate way to deal with local traffic congestion in local areas on local networks—that is the thrust of the Bill—is through the achievement of the network management duty. It is not for us, willy-nilly, to invite people hither and thither to run experiments or pilot schemes.
 Local authorities know their areas and their local communities. I hope that they will consult them and arrive at what they think is best for the area. If that means going beyond the scope of guidance, we may entertain the idea. We are not about to impose pilots or experiments on authorities. It is their job, in the first instance; that is the reason for the network management duty.

David Wilshire: Why is it the correct approach to sit back and wait to see what happens? Why did the other Minister say that guidance was a good idea? Does not the guidance suggest what authorities should do—rather as I am urging the Minister on this question?

Tony McNulty: Unless I have selective, short-term amnesia, that is exactly what I said. We set the strategic, legal framework. We set the duty on local authorities through the network management duty. We issue a host, a slew, of guidance within which we expect various aspects of those duties to be achieved. Local authorities can determine from the whole range of discretionary powers afforded them in the Bill what would be the best portfolio of powers and weapons to achieve what they want.
 That is exactly what the balance should be. To include such things in the Bill, which are ill-defined by specificity, is not in the spirit of the rest of the Bill.

David Wilshire: If the Minister likes the idea of guidance but does not want suggestions from the Opposition, could he say whether the guidance will expect local authorities to keep the use of traffic lights under review and to find the best way of using them?

Tony McNulty: Again, at the risk of a slightly longer but still short-term bout of amnesia, that is exactly what I said the guidance will do. I said that we would include such advice in the guidance, which will be issued under clause 18 on techniques of network management. The guidance will include different settings to cater for rush hour and non-rush hour traffic in order to achieve, among other things, the most expeditious and safest passage of vehicle and passenger traffic, which is broadly what the hon. Gentleman is looking for.
 In the context of road safety, expeditious or otherwise—and of safety in both instances—we feel that the three elements outlined in new clause 13, and the insistence, without regard for local circumstances, of all-red phases not being permitted, do not work in connection with what local authorities want to achieve. As I said, the network management duty and associated guidance will cover traffic light operation, and I would urge the Opposition to withdraw the motion.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Minister, but he has not answered the points that I raised, nor those raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire.
 The Minister's main objection to new clause 5 is the technical one that I have defined ''authority''. I used the word authority because I wanted to cover exactly the complexity that he described in the case of London, through TOCU as well the boroughs and the other highway authorities, and the various powers to install traffic lights. The word ''authority'' clearly refers to the public body in each case—be it an authority, partnership or some other body—that has the power to install, maintain and control traffic signals. If he would prefer me to use other words, I would be happy to withdraw the amendment and incorporate them. If he thinks a supplementary amendment to the definition would be required, that would again be easy. 
 When it came to the issue of substance, the Minister's case seemed to be that there are occasions and junctions where the only way to ensure pedestrian safety is all-red phases. He has not persuaded me. In all too many cases in London the junctions with all-red phases are conventional two-road, four-direction junctions where one would expect alternate greens on one road and then the other and where no hazard to pedestrians is created by use of the parallel pedestrian phase system that is used elsewhere in the country with considerable success. 
 Both my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire and I feel that such matters are worthy of further consideration. We will reflect on what the Minister has said about drafting and special circumstances. The Minister would be well advised to reflect on this important point because bad traffic management, caused by inappropriate phasing at 
 traffic light signals, creates much of the congestion in our towns and cities. I have highlighted one particular speciality and my colleagues have selected another set of circumstances where traffic signals are the cause of congestion. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6 - Maximum speed limits on dual or treble carriageways

'The maximum speed limits on dual or treble carriageway roads with grade-separated interchanges shall not be below 60 mph unless authorised by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 28—Maximum speed limits on motorways— 
 'The maximum speed on a motorway shall be 80 mph and 60 mph in bad weather.'. 
New clause 31—Motorways (maximum speed-limit)— 
 'The maximum speed-limit on any motorway in the absence of any other speed-restrictions is hereby raised to 80 miles per hour.'.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Miss Begg. I do not know whether, like me, you can hear the rather annoying, distracting racket outside the building. In a number of court cases when noise disrupts proceedings, a judge orders the workmen to stop making the noise while the court is in session. As we are the high court of Parliament, can we not do likewise?

Anne Begg: I think that it is probably across the river and under the bridge, and I think that that would be a bit unreasonable. We will just have to shout a little louder to be heard.

John Redwood: It just shows how wise we would have been had we accepted an earlier amendment that stopped such works during the working day to avoid conflict with such a dreadful noise. I am sure that we could extend the amendment to include water as well as road highways. However, I digress from new clause 6.
 As I read my drafting of the clause again, I am amazed at its modesty and understatement and at the degree of trust that it places, for the time being, in the Secretary of State. It just shows how accommodating I am trying to be in order to find a common answer to the vexing problem of traffic congestion. There are a number of well-designed arterial trunk roads in our country with dual or treble carriageways that have relatively safe junctions handled by a separation of the traffic flows rather than traffic signals and conflict between the traffic flows. It seems bizarre that there is no common standard for speed on those roads. 
 On some dual and treble carriageways, speed limits vary from 70 mph to 60 mph to 50 mph to 40 mph, and sometimes go up again for no apparent reason when one gets nearer to the centre of the town or city. That means that the driver spends quite a lot of time looking away from the immediate carriageway ahead to be sure to spot the different speed limits in force on relatively short sections of the carriageway. The driver then regularly has to divert his or her gaze to the speedometer to ensure that he or she has adjusted to the new lower speed limit, even though it would normally be safe to travel at 60 mph throughout in usual conditions.

Brian White: In Milton Keynes, most of the grid roads have national speed limits and therefore the amendments are particularly appropriate to my borough. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of the issues is the speed at which people leave the carriageways and go into estates? Although there may appear to be no reasons for such speed limits on the roads, reasons off the road are not necessarily apparent to drivers.

John Redwood: I do not think that the grid roads in Milton Keynes are defined as large roads with graded separated interchanges. They clearly do not have graded separated interchanges. On the number of roads that do have graded separated interchanges, there could obviously be a lower speed control immediately as the driver left the highway, as is normal.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

John Redwood: I was saying that I think that the speed limit on a suitable highway with grade separation should normally be 60 mph, rather than 40 mph or 50 mph. One of my principal arguments is that people need to know what is a normal speed for that type of road. It is perverse that highways authorities impose limits of anything between 40 mph and 70 mph on a seemingly random basis on roads where there are no pedestrians crossing and there is proper segregation of traffic flows entering and leaving the highway. The only objection that we have heard so far is that that might lead to inappropriate speed when leaving the good highway for a lesser one. I cannot accept that because, of course, there can be a suitable speed restriction for those leaving the highway, and there can be signs to warn those in the exit lane that they need to slow down considerably.
 If we are serious about busting congestion, we have to use our limited number of really good roads to maximum capacity, and we would increase the capacity if we had appropriate maximum speed limits rather than very low ones. If we wish to be fair to the motorist, we should not change the speed limits too often, if at all, on similar stretches of road and we need to have a normal speed for each type of road—as we 
 tend to do on motorways, where the apparent normal speed is 70 mph—so that people know where they are. It is potentially dangerous for motorists to spend time trying to track down often obscure speed signs and watching their speedometers too attentively on stretches of road where the natural inclination of driver and vehicle is to go faster than the artificially low maximum speeds that are set in some places. Those limits are leading motorists to believe that many speed cameras are part of a collection racket: first, the authorities lower the speed on a good carriageway, then they put in a camera to collect the money that becomes due as a result of people's impatience. 
 I offer my support for new clause 31, as opposed to new clause 28. The former would raise the maximum speed limit to 80 mph on a motorway where there are no other restrictions. That is sensible. As somebody in the public eye who is, by inclination, law-abiding, I try to keep to the 70 mph speed limit on motorways. I am always in the slow lane and I am nearly always overtaken by practically every other motorist on the road; the smaller the car, the faster they seem to go and they seem to be jostling with each other in the fast lane, often at speeds in excess of 90 mph. Speeds of 90 mph or 100 mph on congested motorways are not a good idea. 
 If we consider the average speed that drivers achieve, they are making the judgment—against the law at the moment—that going up to 80 mph is not usually unduly hazardous on a properly designed, well lit motorway, or one in good condition in decent sunlight. That judgment about safety is right, although I deprecate the judgment to break the law. As lawmakers, our job is to make sensible laws, and this is an opportunity for us to bring the law into line with the practice and experience of most motorists. We should not wish to make criminals of all motorists; we should listen intelligently when the case can be made for more restricted speed in hazardous conditions and for a more sensible average speed where roads are well designed.

Greg Knight: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Another point is that the 70 mph speed limit on motorways was introduced at a time when most vehicles had drum brakes. Today, the braking systems of cars are far more efficient and advanced, so vehicles can stop more quickly and safely than they could when the 70 mph speed limit was introduced.

John Redwood: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He does so from his direct experience as a vehicle lover who owns several ageing and beautiful classic vehicles. I used to own and had the pleasure of driving a Jaguar E-type from the early 1960s, which I always drove rather more gently and even more carefully than I drive a modern vehicle. Although a Jaguar E-type is always an elegant lady, it is a 1960s vehicle, so the distances required to brake and manoeuvre are far longer than those needed by a modern vehicle with better steering, suspension and brakes.
 My right hon. Friend is correct that sensible drivers adjust their speed accordingly. There has been a massive improvement in vehicles since the 1960s, which means that most of them on the highway are capable of travelling relatively safely at speeds of up to 80 mph.

Claire Ward: The right hon. Gentleman says that there has been a massive improvement in vehicles, and I do not disagree. However, does he believe that there has also been a massive improvement in driving standards?

John Redwood: No, I do not think that there has been a massive improvement in driving standards and it is very important that there should be as big an improvement as possible. However, I do not believe that imposing speed limits that most motorists think are unreasonable is the way to improve driving standards. The experience of the past few years of speed controls via speed cameras has shown that most motorists observe speed restrictions when they know that they will be detected if they do not. They often then accelerate and probably drive faster and more recklessly when they are away from the camera than if no camera was limiting their average speed in the first place. There is also a false sense of confidence that safety is being taken care of by speed control when the main requirements for safety are eternal vigilance and good driving skill by every driver.

David Jamieson: Most modern cars have better brakes, but if I recall correctly, the early E-type Jag was one of the first cars on the road to have disc brakes on all four wheels. Although vehicles have improved, the problem on our motorways is whether human reactions have also improved. The other issue is that roads are far more congested than they were in the heady days of the 1960s. There is now far more traffic on motorways.

John Redwood: Recommending a maximum speed limit of 80 mph does not mean telling drivers that they have a right to travel at 80 mph when the roads are heavily congested. As the Minister will know, there is still a general traffic law that will require the motorist to drive reasonably for the conditions and to keep a sensible distance from the surrounding vehicles and those ahead.
 In many cases, it would be impossible to travel at anything like the 70 mph or 80 mph maximum limit, because at busy times of the day vehicles on a motorway travel at an average speed of 40 mph or 50 mph—if they are lucky—rather than 70 mph or 80 mph. However, at other times, such as weekends and nights, people want to make reasonable progress on perfectly safe roads. My observation—I am sure that the Minister's must be the same—is that when conditions allow, most people want to travel at 80 mph rather than 70 mph. If he and his driver are as well behaved as I am, he will know that while we are in the 
 slow lane, everyone else is making it clear that they think that the legislators are completely wrong about speed limits.

Brian White: The right hon. Gentleman said that most motorists judge that 80 mph is a reasonable speed, irrespective of the fact that they are breaking the law. If the speed limit increased to 80 mph, would there not be a problem that motorists would judge that 90 mph was a reasonable speed, which would increase the overall speed and danger to road users?

John Redwood: I do not think they would, because most drivers are concerned about their own their passengers' safety, and are concerned to drive within their reaction times and limits. Most drivers would not drive at the upper limit. On roads with lower speed restrictions, my evidence is that, unlike on motorways, the average speed is often below the maximum. That is because people are sensible and adjust their speed to the conditions, and they know that often it would be foolish to travel at 60 mph on a road on which that speed was allowed, because of weather conditions, hazards, poor visibility or other traffic behaviour. Instead they would travel at 30, 40 or 50 mph. Motorists are more sensible than the hon. Gentleman says.

Greg Knight: On the point that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) has just made, if 80 miles an hour is so bad on motorways, why is that the upper speed limit in France and Germany?

John Redwood: The Labour party is normally very keen on European harmonisation, and this is a rare example where my right hon. Friend and I might be in favour of it as well. They do not always get it wrong on the continent and this is one of those very welcome examples where I can show what a splendid European I am after all, and show the wisdom of our French and German partners and competitors.

David Wilshire: I am a great fan of my right hon. Friend, as he knows, but I am beginning to worry. If it is becoming likely that he will think about these things, is he not in danger of encouraging us to drive on the other side of the road as well?

John Redwood: I have examined my natural choice, which would be to say that people are free to decide which side they drive on. However, there would be safety implications that would not recommend that to this Committee or to me. I think it better on this occasion to be a traditional Conservative and say that we drive on the right—it is a pity about the others. Perhaps that balances out what I said about the welcome French and German approach to speed limits.
 I digress from the interesting new clause from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I am with him in saying that 80 mph should be the maximum permitted speed on the motorway, and I am glad we think alike. His new clause 28 also contains the interesting proposal that the maximum should be reduced to 60 mph in bad weather. I am sympathetic to that, because there are occasions when rain and 
 mist, fog and snow, ice and hail and slush mean that it is not appropriate to travel on the motorway at 80 mph, even if traffic conditions allow one to do so. My observation is that most motorists are not stupid enough to try, because they reduce their speed in those conditions. 
 The problem with the new clause is the definition of bad weather. Where one motorist might think that the weather was bad enough that their maximum speed should now be 60 mph, another motorist might say ''It is not bad, my eyesight is good, I can see my way through, and my car's traction control can handle this.'' There needs to be specific direction in each case. I go along with the hon. Gentleman, but with this proviso: that the 60 mph restriction should be imposed through the large number of traffic guidance systems and controls around the motorway when someone in authority makes the judgment that visibility and conditions are no longer good enough. We cannot have a universal ''60 mph in bad weather'' clause in the Bill, but otherwise he is absolutely right. 
 Should we vote on these clauses, I shall support my hon. and right hon. Friends in new clause 31—the 80 mph speed limit—and of course my own new clause relating to decent trunk roads, where the maximum should be at least 60 mph.

John Mann: I am not sure whether the nation is listening to our deliberations today, but it is certainly talking about them. I suggest for the record that this is the biggest of the big conversations so far. The nation is discussing speed limits on motorways because everyone has a view, as virtually everyone in the adult population drives or is driven on motorways on occasions or with regularity. In framing my proposal, I was somewhat torn—and I am increasingly so, having heard the persuasive arguments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham—because the dilemma I had was whether miles per hour or kilometres per hour were more appropriate.
 There is a case for saying that convergence with our European allies would assist. The European experience could persuade me that the Government should seriously consider a differential speed limit on motorways. My experience of motorways abroad is not merely the usual parliamentary experience of being caught on a French holiday weekend in August, but derives from having run a company that drove trucks across most of the European Union until 2002. Indeed, I have driven reasonably large vehicles in a number of European countries where use of the motorway is the sensible way to pursue business. Unquestionably, our motorways and our use of motorways are not the best in Europe. Some countries have good rules that are not necessarily followed; others have less rigid rules where drivers follow a sensible approach. 
 The concept of differential speed limits that are dependent on weather has more to do with the culture of driving than with enforcement. To have road signs on motorways repeatedly indicating differential speed limits dependent on weather will impact on driving decisions and driving speed. The signs used on the 
 motorways in France, for example, are very clear, and appear—judging from my professional and my leisure experience—to have a direct impact on driving in a country that is not particularly renowned for following its laws or for its driving prowess. In a more law-abiding country such as the United Kingdom, with more law-abiding people, that would have an impact. However, it may be too much to change the motorway speed limits in a mere half-hour debate today. I know that the Minister's mentality favours more the Italian General Fabius than the German philosopher Marx: gradualism in all things is sensible. 
 Judging from the chat shows and phone-ins, this debate has caught the public imagination. I put many similar proposals to Nottinghamshire county council six months ago: there should, for example, automatically be a 20 mph zone outside schools. I hope that the Minister will contemplate whether that would be worthy of national legislation. 
 Despite the fact that the Minister comes from the home of Sir Francis Drake, I hope that he will be prepared to concede that, on occasion, European legislation is better than ours. I hope that he seriously considers the issue and comes back with a suitable amendment to provide variability. There is no doubt, as was expressed by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, that if one drives at 70 mph, one is passed by many cars. The nub of the issue is officials' approach to enforcement. So far as the mathematics of speed cameras is concerned, I understand that one can drive at 77 mph on a British motorway and not trigger a speed camera. Therefore, officials will doubtless advise the Minister that should the speed limit be 80 mph, using the same arithmetic, 88 mph would be possible without triggering a camera. 
 There is an easy, logical solution. That is to use the approach of the Australians: if there is a suitable speed limit that has a general consensus, those who go above it anticipate that action will be taken against them. That approach is far more credible with the driving public. We should set a speed limit that is acceptable in terms both of people's experience of the roads and of road safety, and we should differentiate between good weather and bad. That would encourage drivers logically to adjust their driving speeds to match the weather conditions, with a consequent reduction in the number of accidents.

Brian White: Does my hon. Friend agree that a concern of many drivers is people's lane discipline? That, rather than their exceeding the speed limit, causes many hold-ups. It is one of the primary causes of delay on our motorways.

John Mann: I am all for people following the ''Highway Code'' and the rules of the road, and moving over rather than dawdling at any speed in the so-called middle lane or queuing in the so-called fast lane, which is, of course, the overtaking lane. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That does not detract from my argument that there should be a coherent set of speed limits appropriate to the road.
 Finally, I disagree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham about whether allowing Big Brother to determine, via an electronic system, that the weather is poor in order to automatically reduce a speed limit is a sensible approach. That should be possible and available, not least for use in case of accidents, but a driver, seeing a speed limit of 60 mph, 50 mph or 40 mph even in the worst of driving conditions, is likely to presume that there is congestion or an accident ahead rather than that it is an instruction to reduce speed because of the weather. The potential to introduce such warnings would remain, because the technology is available, but the speed limit should automatically be reduced to 60 mph in poor weather. That should be the driver's expectation in every circumstance, and not just when directed.

Greg Knight: Who determines what is bad weather? That is the weakness in the new clause. How would the motorist be certain, if the new clause were to become law, that the limit had dropped?

John Mann: In countries abroad, drivers are capable of making such rational judgments. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, like mine, are capable of doing so too. If they were to do so, the culture of driving would change—people would reduce their speed the moment that the weather conditions became more difficult and more dangerous. That has not been my experience on British motorways, particularly in the past 10 years. Creating that culture would be good for the motorist as well as for the passenger and road safety. I commend that suggestion to the Minister for his consideration, albeit with the rider that the continental limit of 110 kph or 130 kph might be more appropriate to align us as true Europeans with our counterparts abroad.

David Wilshire: I have a huge amount of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am conscious of the difficulty of defining ''bad weather''. The French say that bad weather is when it is raining, but we could have a long debate about what is and is not rain. Nevertheless, the system in France seems to work reasonably well.
 I know from my constituency that variable speed limits have a role to play. Most of the M25's variable speed limit is in my constituency and there was a lot of scepticism about that scheme. It is clear when the limit applies, because it is indicated on gantries, and I accept that that is a distinction between my argument and the hon. Gentleman's. However, drivers get the hang of the system fairly rapidly. Constituents who were sceptical at the outset have been, in the main, persuaded that it contributes to safety and the ease of flow on the motorway. His argument would be more powerful if it dealt specifically with motorways rather than all roads. I support the idea that there is a use for variable speed limits. 
 I am slightly confused about the arguments made against a speed limit of 80 mph. On the one hand, some hon. Members have argued that 80 mph is not safe. I do not buy that for one minute because it is safe 
 elsewhere and a lot of our motorways are significantly better than those on which I have travelled abroad. We must determine whether 80 mph is an acceptable, sensible speed at which to travel on a motorway in good conditions. I think that it is, and see no evidence against that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham advanced the argument well, and there is no need to repeat it. 
 On the other hand, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw argued that if the limit were raised to 80 mph, it would, in effect, rise to 90 mph. Both arguments cannot be used. If 80 mph is safe, we could deal with it in the way that the hon. Gentleman argued—80 mph is safe but 81 mph will not be tolerated. That has been done elsewhere. However, if someone argues that 80 mph is not safe, we should lower the speed limit from 70 mph. The limit is currently 70 mph because people insist on driving faster. If anyone argues that increasing the limit will make the situation worse, they are arguing for reducing it. It is perfectly possible to enforce a limit of 70 mph at 71 mph if we so choose, but we do not because the overriding view is that common sense dictates that driving at 74 mph, 75 mph or 77 mph is safe. That argument cannot work both ways: either it is safe to drive at 80 mph or it is not. If it is safe at 80 mph, the new clause is sensible; if it is not safe, let the Minister prove it.

Andrew Miller: If I drove home on Thursday—most of the 200-mile journey is on motorways, except for the section between this place and the constituency of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)—at 80 mph instead of 70 mph, I would save about 20 minutes. We are suggesting risking more lives for the sake of me having the privilege of saving 20 minutes. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and the right hon. Member for Wokingham, that is an absurd argument.
 I agree with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw made about variable speed limits. There is a place for them, although the argument about how to regulate them is complex. However, for example, it is absurd that at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, people should be allowed to drive at 30 mph outside the school to which my children used to go. At 3 o'clock in the morning, it would be perfectly safe to drive past it at 50 mph or 60 mph, so I agree with the principle of variable limits. However, I am opposed to the message coming from the House that we encourage raising the speed limit.

David Wilshire: Why?

Andrew Miller: I shall explain. The World Health Organisation announced that this year it would highlight road danger throughout the world. Figures of deaths on the road match those for famines and the worst form of carnage that we can imagine. It is estimated that by 2030, 2.5 million people a year will be killed on developing countries' roads. That is the scale of the problem.
 The right hon. Member for Wokingham spoke about his E-type Jaguar and recognised that when he is driving a ton and a quarter of steel that can do 150 mph plus, he has a lethal weapon in his hands. He also recognised that speed is extremely dangerous. It is imperative that the House does not send out any message that it is okay to speed.

John Redwood: What I said was that I recognise that excessive speed in a vehicle that does not have the brakes, steering and suspension to match is dangerous. Beautiful though E-types are, older brakes, steering and suspension are simply not responsive enough to withstand the speeds at which the vehicle can travel. Many of the problems have been remedied in modern vehicles, and we are talking about safe speed, not reckless speed.

Andrew Miller: I take the point that vehicle design has changed dramatically. It has made the cocoon in which we sit considerably safer. In fact, the E-type was one of the first vehicles that took on board the principle that in the event of a head-on impact, the engine should slide underneath the driver's legs to prevent his legs being chopped off—a common injury in earlier high-speed crashes.
 The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that vehicle design has changed dramatically. It has done so to the huge benefit of those inside the cocoon, but even though vehicles can stop more quickly, there is still a problem. The quieter and more comfortable the cocoon becomes, the easier it is to allow speed to drift up, and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East is spot on: unfortunately, a minority of the population will abuse that. All the evidence shows that, whatever the speed limit, drivers will perpetually push the boundaries beyond it. 
 No driver on the Committee could hold up their hand and say that they had never driven faster than the speed limit, but we should think rationally about the situation. In a huge number of cases, we make laws in this House not for the sensible people, but for the idiots in our society. The expenditure on signage and gantries around the constituency of the hon. Member for Spelthorne is designed not for sensible drivers but for idiots—that minority of the population who do absurd things that put the lives of the rest of us at risk. All the evidence, not only from the UK but from throughout the world, shows that the higher the speed limit is raised, the worse the risk of death and serious injury is. It would therefore be absurd for the House to raise the speed limit. 
 I shall finish by quoting Paige Mitchell of the slower speeds initiative: 
 ''We need people with complete authority''— 
that is us— 
''to dispel the damaging and bogus arguments, since drivers whose outlook is affected by continual criticism of the legitimacy of enforcement will predictably more likely speed . . . and crash.''

John Thurso: New clauses 28 and 31 suggest that the upper limit on motorways be raised to 80 mph. In principle, I see nothing wrong with reviewing the upper limits on motorways or, perhaps more
 importantly, the limits in areas where cars can come into conflict with other road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists.
 I shall comment first on new clause 28 and two of the points made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, one of which was about differential speeds. I recall that in 1972, when I was working in Arkansas, the freeway had a differential speed limit. It had an upper limit of 85 mph and a lower limit of 65 mph. That recognised that the greatest danger was the differential in speed between different cars on a particular road at a particular time. There were no great problems with the operation of that system, but it was coupled with pretty strict enforcement by state troopers, who were not always the most pleasant people to meet if one got caught by them—I hasten to add that I did not fall into that category. 
 The hon. Gentleman's other point, which is extremely important, is that this matter cannot be decided in a half-hour or one-hour debate added on to consideration of the Bill. Whatever conclusion we come to, attempting to take a decision today would be wrong, however valid our debate. I hope that whatever the temptation, we shall not divide on the issue, because the debate needs to flow and it will flow better if we do not seek to take decisions today. 
 I have said that I see nothing wrong in principle with the possibility of raising the speed limit to 80 mph. I remember that when I worked in a business in the south of England, I had a conversation with the then chief constable for the area, who said that he, too, was quite happy with the concept of increasing speed limits on motorways, which are designed to carry cars and do not have pedestrians. Other chief constables have also felt fairly relaxed about that. The one thing that all the chief constables to whom I have spoken about this issue have said is that such a change would have to go hand in hand with a more severe enforcement regime. They said that increasing a speed limit so that the legal limit corresponds with the speed at which people actually travel must be linked to enforcement. We cannot have one without the other. 
 When we discuss speed, the most important point on which we should focus, and which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) raised, is the carnage that takes place at slower speeds when cars comes into conflict with pedestrians, cyclists and other road users. We must ensure that those problems are addressed before we allow people to go faster at the top end. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. If people take a message from this place that they can do 80 mph and we add that to some of the comments that almost trivialise enforcement and the use of cameras, we send out the message that the House does not really care about speed and does not consider it to be terribly important. We should be sending out the opposite message. We need to educate people and, as several hon. Members have said, we must change the culture. There is nothing wrong with going fast in the right place when the driver is good and road is appropriate, but we must stop the culture of driving too fast where it is wholly inappropriate. That is far more important than anything else. 
 In yesterday's papers, I read the tragic story of the mother who went to jail following an accident in which she overtook a line of cars at 80 mph and killed her daughter and her daughter's best friend as a result. I do not believe for a moment that she deliberately set out to be dangerous, but I do believe that she had no concept of how the way in which she was driving could have that result. Anyone who has been around a skid pan and driven on a race track has some idea of what a car does at speed. We have a real problem, however, with a great many motorists who do not. They simply get into their vehicles after passing a relatively easy test. It is too dangerous to consider raising the upper speed limit without considering the unintended consequence that that might have. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) and I accept the principle that higher speeds could be worth while, but we should first ensure that we make our roads safer at the slower speeds. When we have sent out that message and got the culture right, by all means let us consider raising speed limits on the motorway. That is why I would find it difficult to support the amendments if they were pressed to a Division because, if I can use an odd pun, we are putting the cart before the horse. We need to worry about road safety first and about driver convenience second, and not pander to the boy racer instincts that exist in some sections of society. Instead, we should ensure that safety is put first and that speed and convenience are second.

Greg Knight: In an aside, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East made an important point that fell outside the scope of the amendments when he referred to the lack of lane discipline. However, it is worth putting on record that, in my experience, lane discipline has led to some of the most dangerous situations that have occurred on motorways, particularly when HGV vehicles decide that they want to go faster and pull out into the third lane. A motorist in that lane has every right to expect such vehicles not to do so, because they are not entitled to use that lane.
 My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham made several good points about new clause 6, which I hope the Minister will address. On a recent visit to Loughborough, I came across a stretch of dual carriageway that runs between the town centre and the motorway. For some reason, it has a 40-mph speed limit, despite the fact that there is no obvious stretch of this dual carriageway that pedestrians would want to cross. In addition, the 40-mph signs are partly obscured by foliage in the summer. Three times, I saw police officers with speed cameras hiding in the central reservation at the end of that stretch, pulling in motorists one after the other and giving them a ticket. That led me to the inescapable conclusion that most motorists believe that the speed limit on that road should be 60 mph. When the sign is partly obscured, they probably do believe that it is 60 mph, yet the reaction of the police is to hide in a hedge and try to catch as many speeding motorists as possible. That does not do the reputation of the police any good, and 
 it makes one wonder whether that stretch of road is the sort to which my right hon. Friend referred that could reasonably have a higher speed limit. 
 Several Members expressed their concern about the effect of new clauses 28 and 31. I understand that concern. There is another side to the coin, which is not the boy racer argument, but which is a legitimate argument—that our speed limits on motorways are too low. Not drastically too low, but they are too low and could reasonably be increased to 80 mph. 
 A few years ago, we had a ridiculous campaign that had the slogan ''Speed kills''. To me, the slogan itself was wrong. Speed does not kill. If it did, everyone in an aircraft on take off would be killed. What kills is inappropriate speed, too fast a speed in inappropriate road conditions. At times of non-congested traffic on motorways, it is quite safe to travel at 80 mph, as the French have done for some years and as the Germans do on those roads where they have decided to impose an upper limit. It is insulting to the British motorist to say that a driver in France can use a motorway at 80 mph, and a motorist in Germany can travel at 80 mph, but over here we would be encouraging a boy racer culture and would be giving out the wrong message if we increased our speed limit on motorways to 80 mph. I do not buy that argument.

Andrew Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the density of traffic on French motorways is substantially lower than the density of traffic on UK motorways?

Greg Knight: It probably is mile for mile, but when framing a law we should look at the totality of the situation. For part of the day, for the period of the rush hour, when it is unsafe to travel at 80 mph on our motorways, it is probably unsafe even to travel at 70 mph or 60 mph. On some stretches of the M1 on a Thursday and Friday evening I choose to travel at 50 mph, because the traffic is bunching and stopping frequently. It is what is appropriate. When I travel at non-rush hour periods on motorways, when there are only one or two vehicles on the road that I can see, it would be quite safe for me and other motorists to travel at 80 mph.

Andrew Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, on his logic, we would not have any signage at all and would leave it to the common sense of drivers, but that a minority of drivers would abuse the situation?

Greg Knight: In any democracy there will always be a minority who abuse the situation.

Andrew Miller: Exactly.

Greg Knight: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let me finish. Laws should be framed for the majority. I would take the view that a good motorist should know when it is safe to travel at the maximum speed limit, but personally I am not offended by the situation on the M25 where someone in authority decides what the variable speed limit should be and, if the road is very busy, lowers that limit. I would be quite happy if the
 Minister were to say that we will have an 80 mph upper limit on all motorways but will also consider introducing variable limits at appropriate times. I can live with that. I can see no objection to that at all, because that is guiding the inexperienced or inadequate motorist as to the speed at which he should be travelling. I can see the case for that and would hope that the hon. Member could support it.
 Laws have to be framed in such a way as to command wide public support. I have no statistical evidence, but would guess that were we to conduct a poll among every UK citizen with a full driving licence, the vast majority would say that they felt it was appropriate for the upper speed limit on motorways in this country to be increased to 80 mph. 
 On new clause 28, I was disappointed by the proposing speech of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, as I was hoping that he would deal more comprehensively than he did with the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. I do not think that it is right for motorists to have a subjective view on what is bad weather. What are we trying to achieve? We are trying to get motorists to drive safely. What is safe in bad weather very much depends on what vehicle is being driven.

Andrew Miller: The right hon. Gentleman argued the case for harmonisation with Europe. The rule that applies in parts of northern France and in Belgium is that the driver must make a judgment on whether signs apply to the circumstances that he is facing.

Greg Knight: I never argued for harmonisation; I have been asking why, if there is a 80 mph top limit in France and Germany—where they have a limit at all—can we not have one here? I was posing the question, not arguing at all for harmonisation. We can frame our laws in our way but where it has been tried in France and Germany, it seems to work quite well. I think that we should try the 80 mph upper limit here.
 In terms of new clause 28, when does the lower 60 mph speed limit apply? I should be more attracted to the new clause if it had an element of certainty. I should prefer the system mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, where the overhead gantries start to flash the lower speed limit if those in charge of the system felt it appropriate.

Claire Ward: The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the speed limits in our European counterparts, such as France and Germany. It is true that they have higher speed limits than in the UK. However, he has not given to the Committee any evidence that they are successful in lowering the number of accidents in comparison with the number of users on those roads. Not as many vehicles use the motorways in France compared with the UK. His argument is interesting, but I should be more interested if he were able to give some comparative information for those countries.

Greg Knight: I am not able to do that, but those who have a duty to patrol our motorways—the police—have long held the view that the upper speed limit on our motorways should be 80 mph. I wonder why they
 take that view if some of the dire consequences that some hon. Members think would flow from acceptance of the new clause would happen. They take it because there are times when it would be safe to drive at 80 mph on motorways in this country. I support that view and, although it would not be safe to do so all the time, in appropriate conditions, it would be. I think that 80 mph should be our upper limit.

Brian White: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument about variable speed limits with an upper maximum. However, I have always been prevented from supporting it because of the higher death rate in France. Could the hon. Gentleman address the issue that the death rate in some of the countries that he quotes is higher than in the UK?

Greg Knight: I have seen no evidence whatever that the higher death rate in France is attributable to their 80 mph speed limit on motorways. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the totality of accident figures for France and Germany, it is not the motorway upper limit that causes the higher death rate to which he alluded.
 On new clause 28, I felt that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw had thrown in the towel. He gave the impression that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) had been leaning on him a little. I hope that he will put the new clause to a vote.

John Mann: The right hon. Gentleman's statements, like his arguments, are rather presumptuous. If he is going to put his amendment to the vote, it is incumbent on him to give us some evidence from continental Europe on the comparatives between the three major differentiated systems—the Dutch, Danish and French systems—which, with an eye to the time, I did not include in my discourse. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee an analysis of the different motorway speeds in those countries and their impact on driving and accident records, so that we can put his proposal in a proper context.

Greg Knight: You would soon call me to heel, Miss Begg, if I started taking the Committee round the countries of Europe. I have never said that I support harmonisation; what I have said to those who say that it is impossible to have a limit above 70 mph is that two of our closest and nearest partners across the English channel have 80 mph upper limits on their motorways, which is accepted by the electorate in both countries. The motorists there seem to manage quite well; 80 mph would be appropriate in this country and that is the view that the police take, too.
 I am not arguing for harmonisation with Europe but I am saying, although it is not part of the new clause, that there is a case for this country developing further the variable speed limit programme on motorways other than the M25. If that is being done, to be equitable and fair we need to consider raising the speed limit as well as lowering it. The Minister may find a suitable way forward in that respect—a central unit determining when it is safe to travel at 80 mph and 
 when the road conditions require the limit to be lowered. That would take account of all the concerns expressed in the Committee. 
 Many motorists find it unfair that when they are driving in non-rush hour periods when traffic on the motorway is very light they have to travel at 70 mph when it would clearly be safe to travel at 80 mph. Sometimes when I am driving back to my constituency from this place, for mile after mile I am the only vehicle on the road within my range of vision. It is a matter of degree, and of road conditions.

Claire Ward: I have real sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's argument in this respect and with some of the other points that have been made, but surely, as part of the process of considering the matter in greater detail it would be appropriate to consider the other systems that operate in Europe, their accident levels and the cause of those accidents. I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman for further detail about why they have more accidents in countries where there is a higher speed limit? If there is evidence to prove that it is not because of the speed, but the result of other factors, there should be more debate on the matter. In that case, it would not be appropriate simply to insert in the Bill an arbitrary increase in the speed limit without such further consideration. There is some sympathy for the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes, but not in this respect.

Greg Knight: I am delighted that the hon. Lady appears to have an open mind on the issue. My hon. Friends and I have not yet decided what we will do at the end of the debate; we want to hear what the Minister has to say. If he says that there is merit in the proposal and that he wants to consider further the evidence of how it operates in other countries, we would take a different view of how to proceed on the new clause than if the Minister merely got to his feet and dismissed it as irrelevant and unnecessary. How the debate plays out is very much in the hands of the Minister. If he is willing to indicate to the Committee that the arguments are valid and that he wants to consider them further, I would be sympathetic to giving the debate more time to reach its conclusion—in the hope that when it did reach its conclusion, the hon. Member for Watford would be voting the same way as me.
 I was about to say 10 minutes ago, on new clause 28, that the defect with the argument of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw that each motorist should be allowed to make a subjective judgment is that the motorist's main concern should be what is safe. He should ask himself whether he is driving safely in the current weather conditions. The answer will vary with the type of vehicle being driven. 
 I had the misfortune a few years ago, for a short time, to drive an MG Metro, which I regarded as one of the most unsafe vehicles that I have ever driven. On the other hand, I have the good fortune to own a Jensen FF—it was the world's first production sports 
 car with four-wheel drive, and it was made in West Bromwich. That car was tested in the Alps, and one could not make it skid in snow. I would argue that driving my Mini Metro in snow at 50 mph would probably be highly unsafe; but the Jensen FF would probably be quite safe on a motorway at 70 mph. That is why leaving it to the driver to make a subjective judgment will not work. 
 I hope that the Minister will engage constructively in the debate, and say that the points raised by both sides are worthy of further consideration. I hope that he will be willing to consider the matter with a view ultimately to considering whether it would be appropriate—I believe that it would—to increase the upper speed limit on motorways to 80 mph.

Paul Marsden: I have listened to the debate with great interest. When considering new clauses 28 and 31, it can be entirely seductive to believe, as the police seem to portray, that if the upper limit of 70 mph is enforceable only above 77 mph because of the 10 per cent. leeway, it is therefore okay to travel at 80 mph. The danger of course is that the public will receive the message that if it is permissible to drive at 80 mph they will assume that they can travel at 88 mph. Unless the new speed limit is vigorously enforced, it will fail in its aim. In effect, the new clauses are saying that, de facto, we already have a 77 mph speed limit on motorways, so why not make it 80 mph?
 I also highlight the fact that increasing speed by 10 mph at the lower speed limit on urban roads, say from 30 mph to 40 mph, can be the difference between life and death. As one drives along such roads, children playing in the gardens or driveways may rush out in front of the car. If one is driving at 20 mph, the chances are that one will stop. At 30 mph one will probably break the child's legs. At 40 mph, one will kill them. 
 Such distractions are not necessarily so prevalent on motorways, which makes it easy to think that we could raise the limit by 10 mph without any worries. However, we must remember the simple fact that, every year, 3,500 people are killed in road traffic accidents. We must stigmatise speeding drivers. So far, touch wood, I have never been stopped for speeding, but that is not to say that I have never been speeding. 
 We have to address the fact that speeding is an endemic problem. It is not only about speed cameras and enforcing the law; it is also about making people understand that it could be their children about to step in front of a speeding car. However, the right hon. Member for Wokingham and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw were right to highlight the inconsistency whereby the police could in theory stop someone driving at 78 mph and book them for speeding, but that they could not do so if the car was being driving at 75 mph. 
 Clampdowns on speeding seem to show enormous inconsistencies between police forces. The travelling public cannot see why they should not be allowed to travel at higher speeds at different times and in different conditions. It is all about driving to suit the conditions and making the judgments mentioned in new clause 28 regarding, for instance, bad weather, 
 which is a classic example. As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw suggested, it would not be beyond the British police to enforce lower speed limits on motorways when the difficult driving conditions are more difficult.

Brian White: Is it not already the law that drivers have to drive with due care and attention?

Paul Marsden: Of course. They have to drive according to the conditions. Their speed has to depend on the weather, whether there is oil on the roads, whether they are overtaking and so forth. However, with regard to the specifics of new clause 28, it is not difficult to figure out the difference between good and bad weather. If you are driving along a French motorway and you turn on your windscreen wipers, you soon know if it is bad weather. To some extent, we should trust people to be able to figure that out.
 New clause 28 needs a lot more thought and debate, and its language would need tightening up for it to be enforceable. That is why I could not support it at this time and will not be voting for it today, no doubt to the relief of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). 
 In our culture and our society we think it acceptable to speed in our cars, just as 15 years ago drink-driving was not seen to be a problem. It was acceptable to have one for the road, and if you had had a few too many drinks, that was okay, it was a bit of a laugh. Now society has changed, partly because of Government advertising and partly because the police have clamped down. People's opinions have changed because they realise that drink-driving kills the innocent. Speeding does the same. 
 My hon. Friend mentioned the tragic case of the mother who was driving far too fast for the conditions, and who killed her daughter and her daughter's friend. Clearly she has been punished beyond belief; nevertheless it was right that the judge gave her a custodial sentence, partly to send out a warning to other motorists that such driving is not tolerable, particularly on rural roads, where this carnage often takes place. 
 Jeremy Clarkson once said that the best way to make drivers slow down was not to put in more airbags, but to take them out and put a large spike in the steering wheel, which would make drivers realise that they had to slow down, otherwise their head would hit the steering wheel. Maybe he had a point. 
 We have to remember the cost of all this: 3,500 people are dead, some of them on our motorways, and when one adds up all the costs—the destruction of the vehicle, the insurance, calling out the emergency services, the legal wrangling and the clean-up afterwards—each fatality on our roads costs on average £1 million of taxpayers' money. That is a phenomenal cost to the taxpayer, and we are getting far ahead of ourselves if we are saying that the House should encourage drivers to speed when we should be asking them to slow down.

Christopher Chope: I shall not keep the Committee long. We have had a good debate on these issues, but we had rather a factual vacuum. I want to introduce one or two statistics from the Department for Transport. There is, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said, a great debate raging on the airwaves and in newspaper columns as a result of the new clauses that we are debating this afternoon, and that is an extremely healthy development. Almost all of the 32 million people in this country with driving licences have a view on the issue. It is incumbent on MPs to address the issues that concern people and by debating the new clauses we are certainly doing that.
 I agree with everything that my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham and for East Yorkshire said in support of the new clauses. I also agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. This is an issue about what is realistic. We are dealing with law and law enforcement and if the law is not to fall into disrepute, it must enjoy public support. We can judge the view of the public on these issues by their actions rather than by their words. The facts are that 19 per cent. of those who travel on motorways do so at speeds in excess of 80 mph. 
 There are 32 million drivers in the country, with an average annual mileage of 10,000 miles per driver; just short of 20 per cent. of their driving is on motorways, which is just short of 2,000 miles per driver on a motorway each year. One can extrapolate from those statistics that the average driver probably drives about 350 miles each year in excess of 80 mph, and the limit is 70 mph. We know that if 18 per cent. or 19 per cent. of people exceed 80 mph, 50 per cent may exceed 70 mph. That is probably quite likely because we know that the average speed on motorways is about 70 mph. 
 What is to happen to those people who are driving between 70 and 80 mph? Will we legitimise their behaviour? Will we bring them within the law so that people like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, who is absolutely determined to comply with the letter of the law at all times, can drive on the motorway at 80 mph rather than at 70 mph as he does at present, which is probably a minority activity? As he says, he is pushed into the slow lane and almost everyone overtakes him. If the Committee is collectively agreed that driving in excess of 80 mph raises issues of safety that should concern us, there is plenty of scope for enforcement. There is that 18 per cent. or 19 per cent. of people who already exceed 80 mph.

Brian White: One reason why police forces do not enforce at 71 mph, is the accuracy of speedometers. The question is whether speedometers are as accurate as they can be at 80 mph.

Christopher Chope: The problem is that people think that they can go 10 mph over any limit for the very reason the hon. Gentleman mentions. As a consequence there is a very dangerous read-across to the lower speed limits. People in a 30 mph limit think that they can go 10 mph faster than that. They go at 40 mph which is one third above the speed limit and they do so because of arguments about the accuracy of the speedometer.
 I do not think that we can argue these days that speedometers are that inaccurate. Indeed, there is pressure on the enforcement authorities to reduce the level above the limit that is not subject to enforcement.
 The relativity argument, which been deployed in this debate, is important in the message that it gives to people who do not comply with lower speed limits. It leads them to think that if the speed limit is 20 mph they can drive at 30 mph and it will not matter, even though that is 50 per cent. above the limit. We know from all the statistics that that imperils pedestrians, cyclists and other urban road users. 
 However, on the motorway there are no learners, bicycles or pedestrians. There are good safety features, hard shoulders and a culture among motorists of believing that they can drive safely and within the law at anything between 70 mph and 80 mph, even though they are technically breaking the law and thereby bringing it into disrepute, because it is not being enforced. One can understand why that happens; we cannot possibly enforce the law against about 50 per cent. of the people driving on the motorways. As I have said, on average, between five and six hours per driver will be spent in persistent offending against even the 80 mph limit. The level of persistent offending against the 70 mph limit must be even greater. 
 The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked about the unintended consequences of an upper speed limit with which there is minimal compliance in free-flow conditions. He should look at the unintended consequences of not enforcing a speed limit at all and the impact that that has on the effectiveness of much lower speed limits. In all the media interviews that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) has given today, he has emphasised that there should be a balance. We are trying to set realistic speed limits and achieve realistic compliance with speed limits that really count, instead of keeping the 70 mph limit on motorways, which most motorists now regard as arbitrary and irrelevant. 
 Peter Joslin, who was chairman of the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers in the days when I was Minister for Roads and Traffic—

David Jamieson: The moderate voice.

Christopher Chope: His is a moderate and reasonable voice. He is a much respected, retired senior police officer. Writing in the Mail on Sunday on 1 February, he stated:
 ''Policing is about balancing priorities and keeping the public on your side. If we lose the confidence of motorists, we will lose their confidence in more important areas such as crime and prosecution.'' 
He went on to call for a fresh look at variable speed limits, saying: 
 ''There was no sense . . . in enforcing 20 mph zones outside schools at weekends and during holidays when no children were around.''
He also expressed the view that, on motorways, even a 75 mph limit could be too low in good conditions. That was no more than a statement of common sense. As a legislature, we should ensure that the law complies with common sense, and that is what the new clauses seek to do.

David Jamieson: This goes on record as the longest debate so far on any of the amendments or new clauses.
 In new clause 6, I detect the centralising tendency of the Conservative party. The new clause would impose on local authorities a limit of at least 60 mph when that might not be appropriate. The local authorities and the Highways Agency have sole responsibility for introducing speed limits on the roads. They currently have powers to introduce limits of between 20 mph and 70 mph without the need for authorisation from the Secretary of State. 
 The national speed limit normally applies on dual carriageways. It is 70 mph for cars, but it is not the same for all vehicles. Goods vehicles weighing more than 7.5 tonnes are not allowed to exceed 50 mph. It is often necessary for local authorities to impose lower speed limits for safety reasons. Dual carriageways are situated not only on inter-urban routes, but in towns, near villages and outside schools. Other considerations relate to the environment and noise and I shall return to them later. 
 I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ashford is aware of the contents of the amendment. He was quoted on the BBC news website as saying: 
 ''We should be more sensible and more variable in the speed limits we have to reflect the dangers both to drivers and, equally importantly, to pedestrians, particularly to children.'' 
I would not disagree with that. However, new clause 6 actually dictates that drivers should have a speed of at least 60 mph on the roads in question, regardless of the local circumstances and of what the local authority thinks. It would be helpful if he could convene his team and get some consistency on the issue, otherwise he might be accused of a little opportunism in the way in which he goes around television and radio studios.

Christopher Chope: There is no inconsistency between the approach adopted by my hon. Friends and I and the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. We are saying that in certain circumstances, such as outside a school when children are coming out, a low speed limit of about 20 mph is appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham is saying that on a dual carriageway with grade-separated junctions, where pedestrians and cyclists are separated from the rest of the traffic, it is perfectly sensible to have a speed limit of 60 mph.

David Jamieson: That would be the case if the two things were mutually exclusive. Sometimes 60 mph roads with grade-separated interchanges on dual carriageways are outside schools and parks. That is where they are situated in some parts of our cities. It is up to the Highways Agency, where appropriate, or the local authority to make decisions based on safety for children and their parents. It is up to them to make
 those decisions, which should not be imposed by the Bill. There is an inconsistency, but perhaps we can argue about it at a different time.
 Requiring local authorities to seek authorisation on all such speed limit changes would add unnecessary bureaucracy. I thought that the right hon. Member for Wokingham was generally against additional bureaucracy, but his new clause would put in place further heavy burdens. 
 New clauses 28 and 31 are important proposals about which I have one or two things to say. The present safety record on our motorways is very good and compares favourably with that of other types of roads. When we consider any change to speed limits, we must ask whether we could be jeopardising that good record. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston have also both raised that central question. 
 The motorway speed limit, which was introduced in 1965, has been subject to review on more than one occasion. The last review was carried out in 2001, when we considered the possible effects of increasing the motorway speed limit to 80mph. I have four different areas of concern about raising the speed limit from 70 mph to 80 mph. These are matters that I think we should debate sensibly and put into the pot for discussion. 
 The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and others have asked why we cannot have some harmonisation with Europe. That is not generally what we hear from Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Wokingham certainly does not generally favour harmonisation with other aspects of what is going on in Europe. I put a simple question to the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire: would he want to harmonise our road casualty figures with those of France and Germany? France's casualty rate is two and a half times higher than ours, and Germany's is substantially higher. In countries such as Spain and Portugal, the rate is even higher, so I do not want to harmonise our death and injury rate with the rates in those countries. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the European Union does not have a competence in that area, and I am pretty determined that it should not have one, because I do not want it to set targets above the levels that we are at. We are doing rather well. 
 Road safety has been discussed at the Transport Council, and I have attended those discussions with representatives from the other EU countries. Those countries are becoming concerned about road safety. The 10 new countries that are coming into the EU on 1 May are especially concerned, including the Czech Republic, which is very anxious about its road safety record. Instead of us looking to them, they are looking to us and asking, ''How is it that your record is so good on your roads?'' They want to know how we have retained political consensus over a long period to reduce deaths on the road. In the past 30 or 40 years, Governments of all complexions have tackled that issue, and those countries want to know how we have achieved our results. We should not be looking to France and Germany; they should be looking to us to 
 find out why our road safety record is so much better. I certainly do not want to harmonise our casualty rates with those in other European countries.

Greg Knight: Let me repeat for the third time that I did not use the word ''harmonise.'' I asked why, although France and Germany have upper limits, we cannot try one in the UK. Will the Minister confirm that the accident figures to which he referred include all accidents in France, and not just those on the motorways?
 Finally, did the 2001 survey undertaken by the Minister's Department consider the possibility of introducing a trial 80 mph upper limit as part of a variable speed limit on certain motorways?

David Jamieson: No, the survey did not consider that possibility, but I will return to that point at the end of my remarks. It is a good point.
 I am not sure about France, as its motorways are generally long, straight and far less congested than ours, but the Germans are examining their upper speed limit because of the number of crashes that occur at very high speed on their motorways. I believe that there is no upper speed limit on the autobahns, so vehicles sometimes travel at more than 100 mph, and there are some spectacular crashes—I mean spectacular in the worst sense of the word—which cause death, substantial injury, and great disruption on the roads.

John Mann: It is important that we get the facts straight, so I wish to clarify one point. In Germany, people are discussing whether they should have an upper speed limit.

David Jamieson: I think that people are discussing whether they should lower the speed limit. Again, they are looking to our example—

John Mann: The situation in Germany is that there is no speed limit for cars on many parts of the autobahns. Therefore, people are discussing whether there should be an upper speed limit.

David Jamieson: Those involved are considering whether the fact that cars can travel at almost any speed at which they are capable of moving is contributing to the problem of casualties on the German roads. As we have had a 70 mph limit for some considerable time, they are looking to our example to see if that limit is one of the contributory factors in ensuring better safety.

Paul Marsden: The Minister is right—it is a myth that one can travel as fast as one likes on any stretch of the autobahn. That situation has changed, and large stretches now have speed limits. He is also right that the Germans are looking to the British way of setting speed limits on motorways.

David Jamieson: I believe that many Germans are also finding that they cannot travel at excess speeds on the autobahns because they are so congested, but I shall return to that point.
 The reason why motorways are safer than other roads is that the traffic is all going in the same direction and the lanes are clearly divided. That is obvious. Even if there is a collision, the fact that the speed differential between vehicles is lower means that the consequences are usually less than when two cars collide head on. 
 As we know, buses and lorries are subject to a lower speed limit than 70 mph on the motorways. They tend to occupy the inner lane or lanes and to move at a slower speed than the traffic in the centre or outer lane, which may be travelling legitimately at 70 mph or sometimes faster. If we were to raise the speed limit, there would be a general increase in speed in the outer lane, and a consequent increase in the differential speed between vehicles on the motorway. If there were a collision, it would therefore be more serious. 
 I do not want to go too much into the mathematics, but as speed increases the consequences of the collision increase by the square of the extra speed. Thus the impact does not just increase in direct proportion to the speed, but increases exponentially. 
 Moreover, there is a great difference between the braking distance at 70 mph—regardless of the sort of vehicle—and at 80 mph. About 30 per cent. more stopping time is needed for a vehicle travelling at 80 mph. Although braking systems on cars have improved enormously, we know that most casualties on the roads are caused not by the condition of the vehicle, but by errors made by the driver. Human beings have probably not changed much since the 1960s.

John Redwood: If the Minister is so convinced that speed is a prime cause of accidents, why is the Department for Transport encouraging 125 mph trains, and wanting 150 mph trains? Surely that must be lethal if there is a true connection—that speed kills.

David Jamieson: If the trains were not held on to a track and going in one direction, there would be a concern about that. Alas, road vehicles are not on a track. Trains do not share their space with a large number of other vehicles going at different speeds. If they did, there would be a large number of crashes on our rail system.

John Redwood: The point is that there is much more traction for rubber on tarmac than there is for steel on steel. The Minister's points about differential speeds apply even more on the railways, with slow trains and fast trains, and drivers that go through red lights. Why is the Minister countenancing speed?

David Jamieson: The comparison is spurious because on a rail system each train is highly regulated, whereas on the road each vehicle is not. A vehicle on the road is capable of getting close to the vehicle in front, whereas that is not possible on the train system, as long as it is operating safely and properly, and is properly regulated by the signalmen.

Greg Knight: I shall take the Minister back to the question of roads. He made the fair point that drivers should realise that, if they are travelling faster, they need to leave a bigger gap between them and the car in front. In developing his argument, can he tell us what conclusions his Department has drawn on the effectiveness of the chevron markings on the M1 motorway in Northamptonshire, the aim of which is to encourage drivers to drive further apart? If an 80 mph upper speed limit were to be introduced, would one option not be to make greater use of chevron markings?

David Jamieson: The chevron markings are apparent on a number of our motorways—the M6 also has them somewhere towards Manchester. They have been successful in making people think about how far behind another vehicle they should be, and we are assessing their value. However, if they were rolled out across the whole road network, that would be very costly, and their impact might also be reduced.
 Before we move on from matters of safety, I should say that the safety barriers were constructed to take account of a certain maximum speed. I believe that that maximum speed was around 74 mph. We must therefore take that issue into account. 
 The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire mentioned the police. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers does not support an increase in the speed limit. If that is wrong, I should be interested to learn about it, although that is not the information that has been brought to my attention. 
 The right hon. Gentleman talked about the ''Speed Kills'' campaign. I remember that campaign, but I think that it was in the early 1990s, when his party was in power. Again, his party is trying to distance itself from its past. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had amnesia a little earlier, but I certainly do not, and I can remember some of the issues very vividly indeed. 
 An important issue that has not been raised is the impact of extra speed on the environment. We know that the amount of fuel used by a vehicle travelling consistently at 80 mph is probably between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. more than that used by a vehicle travelling at 70 mph. That increases not only the amount of CO2, in the atmosphere, on which we rightly have targets because of the damage to environment, but the amount of NOx and other emissions. That mainly affects the people in the vehicles, but also the people who live round and about. 
 Another issue that was not raised is the noise from engines and tyres and the wind noise around vehicles. A number of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have told me about the huge impact on their constituents of noise caused by the speed at which vehicles travel on major roads and motorways such as the M3. We must not overlook the point about noise.

Greg Knight: Speeds and motorway noise is, of course, an issue, but if the Minister looks at the complaints that he has received from Conservative
 Members of Parliament, he will find that they are campaigning not for a lower speed limit, but for motorway fencing.

David Jamieson: They are, but since the noise is created by the vehicle, it is possible only to introduce mitigation measures rather than remove the noise completely. The problem is another issue and has been raised by Conservative Members and many of my hon. Friends, who say that urban areas through which congested motorways pass suffer substantially from noise.
 Increasing the average speed to 80 mph and its effect on the economy was alluded to. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made the good point that travelling consistently at 80 mph rather than at 70 mph for 200 miles would, assuming that the whole journey was on the motorway, probably save 15 to 20 minutes. In reality, however, because of local roads at either end of that journey, one may save only eight or 10 minutes. I do not think that the economic case is well made. Also, if it were shown that going at higher speeds caused more collisions, more vehicles would be held up. The issue is free flow, which I shall comment on in a moment.

Christopher Chope: How is what the Minister has just said consistent with his approach in part 1 and other parts of the Bill, which is all about measures to increase the speed and reliability of traffic flow? The advantages that will result from those provisions in the Bill are nothing like as great as that in the example that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston gave.

David Jamieson: There is a difference between speed and flow. What problem is an increase in the speed limit from 70 mph to 80 mph an attempt to solve? I would have thought that many motorists, including myself, would be happy to know that they could always travel at 70 mph on our motorways. Sadly, however, they cannot do so, because the motorways are very often congested, particularly when there are incidents. That relates to our earlier discussions about traffic officers dealing with incidents more rapidly. Those things will concentrate people's minds. I have been told that we take too long to clear up many of the incidents and that we are leaving our roads congested for too long periods. Those are the real issues, and people would be happy if they could drive at 70 mph. Indeed, an 80 mph limit would often be academic because congestion makes it impossible to drive that quickly. I think that the right hon. Member for Wokingham also made that point.
 Like the hon. Member for Ashford, the AA expressed views on the idea. John Dawson of the AA Motoring Trust said that most drivers did not want the speed limit to raise only for everyone then to drive 10 mph faster. He said: 
 ''Motorists don't want the driven speeds on motorways to change and there's no safety reason to change it—motorways are incredibly safe'' 
and, significantly: 
 ''If it were raised, it would have to be enforced at 80mph.''
The Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines state that the current 70 mph limit should be enforced at 10 per cent. plus two, which is effectively 79 mph—more than my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said. In other words, the police are not pulling over people who are doing those speeds but driving safely in other senses. 
 I agree with John Dawson that if the limit were raised to 80 mph, it would have to be enforced at that speed. As has been alluded to in the debate, there would be difficulties with that. If someone were brought before court for doing 80.5 mph, the magistrate or judge would throw the case out because of a lack of reliability of evidence and because the driver could claim that their speedometer was not reading accurately and that they broke the law inadvertently. The ACPO guidelines exist to ensure that the police can secure a prosecution in the courts.

Christopher Chope: Is the Minister saying that if a driver, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, drives at anything between 70 and 79 mph on a motorway, he is not doing anything about which he should be concerned?

David Jamieson: What I am saying is that the police have issued guidance that if a driver in that band is not doing anything else to infringe road traffic laws, they should not pull them over. However, the matter is for the discretion of the individual constable, who would have to consider the circumstances. If someone were travelling at 75 mph on a motorway and driving dangerously by weaving in and out of traffic, they would be picked up. It is a matter for the police to use reasonableness and good sense in implementing the law. If the limit were 80 mph, a 10 per cent. plus two rule would take us to 90 mph, which would be a different world. Although many modern cars are constructed to travel at higher speeds, I would feel unsafe if many of the cars on the road were passing me at 90 mph.

John Mann: We could use the Australian system, in which people are allowed to drive up to, but not at, the speed limit and in which any transgression is automatically prosecuted with a significant fine. Does the Minister agree that if we adopted that with the continental limit of 130 kph, which if my maths are right translates at 76 mph, we would reduce the real speed limit at which people are prosecuted?

David Jamieson: Yes, that is possible.
 My eye was attracted by a document that was published on 10 November last year in the United States. It was a status report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, covering places where speed limits had increased. Under a section entitled ''Deaths go up when speed limits are raised'', it said: 
 ''States that increased speed limits to 75 mph experienced 38 percent more deaths per million vehicle miles than expected''. 
It makes the point that states that raised their speed limits experienced a considerable increase in casualties. Several hon. Members said that we need to consider the matters carefully, and we do. The evidence that I quoted is compelling, and we should 
 not plunge into any changes without giving them significant thought. The hon. Member for Ashford is going round television and radio studios without the full knowledge of the information or the potential consequences. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw raised a point about introducing a lower maximum speed of 60 mph in bad weather. That is a good idea, but he would have to agree that it would be difficult to decide what is bad weather. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw made the point about variable speed limits, and we will have to consider that seriously. The hon. Member for Spelthorne said that most of the variable speed limits on the M25 are in his constituency. As he knows, that system has worked well; slowing traffic can make it go faster because there is a better flow with no stopping and starting. The new scheme on the M42 will have a variable speed limit, especially when there is hard shoulder running. 
 Once the technology is in place—loops in the road and variable message signs throughout the motorway and trunk road system—together with the type of information systems available to drivers, it will be interesting to consider varying speed limits along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. The Highways Agency and traffic officers on the motorway would make decisions based on rain or fog. If there had been an incident, they could impose a mandatory reduction to the limit for road safety reasons or for flow reasons, as is the case on the M25. 
 Notwithstanding issues of safety, the environment and noise, if we found that we could enforce variable speed limits at certain times of the day, we should have a sensible debate about that. However, given current technology and the massive congestion on our roads, that is not practical. I hope that this debate has been useful; it has certainly been the longest so far. There are issues that must be examined, but I have given my reasons why accepting the new clauses would be inappropriate.

John Redwood: I shall be brief. We have had a long debate but the Minister has given a muddled and unsatisfactory reply. He told us that our motorways are our fastest and safest roads. When asked about the distinction between trains and motor vehicles, he pointed out that he thinks that railways are safer because traffic flows in one direction on any given track and there are no pedestrians, cyclists or children playing football. The same conditions apply to motorways, but there is the added advantage that cars have steering, better brakes, and adhesion to the tarmac. The problem with trains travelling faster is that rails are more likely to break because rail stress increases with speed geometrically. Therefore, the distinction that he made makes no sense. If he believes that all speed kills, he should apply that logically to all modes of transport, not just to motor vehicles.
 Speed alone does not kill; speed allied with other factors kills. Those factors can include inattentive and dangerous driving, or inappropriate conditions arising from climate, other road users, conflict of junctions, bad road design or vehicle failure. Our traffic laws rightly place a duty on every motorist to drive with due care and attention. That must mean choosing an appropriate speed whatever the maximum speed limit. If someone is involved in a disastrous accident causing injury or death, it is no defence in a court of law to say, ''I was going at exactly the permitted maximum speed limit.'' If a case can be made that the speed was too fast for the conditions, it is no defence for a driver to say that he was obeying the maximum limit. Every motorist should know that they have to make a judgment all the time that they are in their motor vehicle about what is the appropriate speed. The permitted maximum is only one factor that they should take into account. They are required to make judgments all the time about appropriate speeds. 
 It is the view of practically every motorist in this country, however, that 70 mph is sometimes an inappropriately low speed limit for, say, fast roads in suitable traffic conditions when the weather permits and every other circumstance is right. This law is being broken daily by otherwise law-abiding citizens. They do not break it only once in a while; they break it as a matter of routine. We as lawmakers have to ask ourselves the very difficult question, ''Are we really going to get tough with them and say that going at 72 mph on a motorway is unacceptable conduct and stop them, or are we going to say we have got it wrong and that, on this occasion, the speed limit is inappropriately low and we ought to adjust the behaviour patterns out there?'' 
 There is a very clear division in the Committee on this simple proposition, and I think it should be tested by a vote.

Christopher Chope: If the opportunity arises, Miss. Begg, I hope that we can put new clause 31 to the vote, too.

John Redwood: And new clause 28.

Anne Begg: New clause 28 was tabled by Mr. Mann. It is up to him to decide whether to press it.

John Mann: I would not want to press the new clause later.

John Redwood: No.

John Mann: Having heard what the Minister said about the important change of approach and his point that variable speed limits using technology could be considered—which would be quite a significant change in the way our motorways operate—and considering the necessity of speed limits and such issues being fully debated in public rather than out of rank opportunism, I beg to seek leave not to press my new clause.

Anne Begg: The opportunity to withdraw the new clause is not yet before the Committee. I shall take that when we come to it. We are still on new clause 6. The others will be dealt with when we come to them later this afternoon.
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 8Planning applications

New Clause 8 - Planning applications

'In determining planning applications, planning authorities shall have regard to—
(a) the impact of the proposed development on traffic-flows and congestion;
(b) the need for pull-ins for bus-stops;
(c) the need for adequate off-street parking and garaging in residential developments; and
(d) the need for delivery access to commercial developments.'—[Mr. Redwood.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The main purpose of the Bill—an admirable purpose—is to reduce congestion. One of the easiest ways of achieving that aim is to design congestion out wherever we have the opportunity to add to the urban landscape or to developments around the country. I will briefly explain each part of the clause. 
 The new clause would come into operation when a planning application came before a planning authority. It says that the authority should take congestion seriously when making decisions and recommendations about such proposals. It would also influence planning officers in their informal and useful discussions with those who were contemplating lodging applications to undertake developments. 
 The first requirement is that a planning authority should always consider 
''the impact of the proposed development on traffic-flows and congestion''. 
Planning authorities would then have a reason and a right to veto development proposals that would place undue strain on local transport systems. All too often, residential housing developments are inappropriately situated, well away from serviced urban areas and good public transport systems. That inevitably causes trouble for overstretched road networks, particularly when there are no plans for improvements. 
 Furthermore, too many infill developments are crammed into urban and suburban areas, leading to large increases in vehicle flows on already congested and inadequate urban and suburban roads. The new clause would place a duty on planning authorities to weigh the congestion impact in the balance, along with the other considerations that are already set out in planning law. 
 Subsection (b) would require planning authorities to ensure that there were pull-ins for bus stops. When new developments are considered, particularly in urban areas, I trust that consideration will be given to proper public transport provision, including access to railways and buses. In busy urban and suburban areas, congestion can be caused by buses stopping on the carriageway to pick up and drop off passengers. A simple expedient would be to provide pull-ins for buses so that they could make safer and, if necessary, prolonged stops without disrupting the traffic flows behind. It would be simple to incorporate that design feature in the new residential and commercial areas that spring up from time to time. 
 Subsection (c) suggests that we need 
''adequate off-street parking and garaging in residential developments''. 
There is a fad for reducing the number of parking places and garage facilities in new residential developments in the belief that doing so will limit car ownership and use, but it does not. Instead, families nearly always buy the same number of cars as they would have done otherwise. They then leave their vehicle—or, in the case of two-car families, vehicles—on the street because there is insufficient off-street parking and garaging. The problem is usually worse in areas where a high proportion of cars is owned by the employers of the people concerned, because people will often fill their garage with other things and leave their car on the street. 
 Of course, that problem is aggravated when insufficient parking and garaging facilities are provided in the first place. If we are to cut congestion and get more cars off the street, therefore, it would be sensible to ensure that new residential developments had enough off-street parking and garaging places to take account of patterns in many parts of the country, where both adults in the household usually need their own car, have the wherewithal to acquire one and need somewhere to put it. 
 Subsection (d) says that the planning authority should take account of 
''the need for delivery access to commercial developments.'' 
In urban and suburban commercial centres, much strain, stress and congestion is created by the need for delivery vans and pick-up vans to park outside stores in the high street, often blocking all or part of the carriageway. That is also very hazardous for the people making the delivery, and there can be conflict with other drivers as people seek to deal with difficult loads, which may affect their vision and the vehicle's balance. When we permit new commercial developments, we must ensure suitable back access to 
 properties so that delivery vehicles—which are often very large—keep off the main highway to avoid unnecessary congestion. 
 I have summarised the impact of new clause 8. It is uncontentious and I hope that the Minister, being a man determined to go down in history as a congestion-busting Transport Minister, will welcome the sensible guidance and advice for the planning authorities to make his task a little less impossible.

Christopher Chope: I support everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said. All hon. Members have examples in their own constituencies of planning authorities not applying the common-sense principles that my right hon. Friend has articulated so well. I should like to put on record my feeling that in the Castle Point development in Bournemouth, the borough council has failed in a wholesale way to apply the principles that my right hon. Friend would have urged, and which would have been a requirement on it. The consequence of the development is that for miles around, including access to the courts and the hospital in Bournemouth, the traffic is clogged for many hours of the day. It sometimes takes people who work in the hospital an hour and a half to drive out of the hospital in order to leave work; that is a direct result of the traffic generated by the Castle Point development, which was approved by Bournemouth borough council for its own best interests, but totally in disregard of the consequences for the travelling public.

Tony McNulty: New clause 8 specifies a number of issues that local planning authorities must consider, all of which are already capable of being of material consideration to planning applications. The courts are the arbiters of what is a material consideration. If it is a material consideration, the local planning authority must have regard to it, so the new clause is unnecessary. A specific issue may not always be material, in which case no account will be taken of it.
 Underlying the system is a series of planning policy guidance notes: PPG 3 deals specifically with car parking standards, and PPG 13 deals with larger developments where developers are asked to submit a transport assessment and a travel plan with applications that might have a significant transport implications. If the right hon. Gentleman is unhappy with the way in which the planning laws and frameworks are executed, that may or may not be entirely fair, but it is inappropriate to put such matters in the Bill, not least because—going back to where we started on part 2—he suffers from undue specificity. There may be a range of other matters to do with traffic, such as congestion, that are germane to any application anywhere in the country. The effect of these clauses—notwithstanding PPG3 and PPG13 and general advice in the general development order—would be to over-specify the traffic matters to which local planning authorities should have regard. They would exclude—even if that were not the intention—
 or dilute the impact of other traffic matters that could be germane to a development. I ask that the new clause be withdrawn.

John Redwood: I am grateful for the Minister's helpful comments. I do not find the planning system sufficiently sensitive to travellers' needs, and I believe that the items specified in my new clause are exactly what is needed to give the legislation some teeth. We all know that common sense is being ignored or thrown out of the window by all too many planning authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch had given a good example of his own area of Bournemouth. We have all seen that around the country. With your permission, Miss Begg, I should like to press the new clause.
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 6.

Question accordingly negatived. New clause 9Repeal of section 74A of New Road and Street Works Act 1991

New clause 9 - Repeal of section 74A of New Road and Street Works Act 1991

'.Section 74A of the 1991 Act is hereby repealed.'.—[Mr. Chope.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 6.

New clause 15 - Network management duty

'(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State or the Assembly to achieve, as far as may be reasonably practicable, the following objectives:
(a) securing the safe and expeditious movement of traffic on the relevant road network; and
(b) facilitating the safe and expeditious movement of traffic on road networks for which another authority is the traffic authority.
 (2) In this clause, ''relevant road'' means a road in England for which the Secretary of State is the traffic authority or a road in Wales for which the Assembly is the traffic authority.'.—[Brian White.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Brian White: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 16—Annual report to parliament—
 'A report on the scale, activities and effectiveness of the work of traffic officers shall be presented on an annual basis to Parliament by the Secretary of State.'.

Brian White: New clause 15 is a re-run of a matter we have discussed several times in the Committee, so I will not go into details. The proposal was intended to be complementary to the amendment on local government and the use of safe roads.
 New clause 16 arises from my experience on the Public Administration Committee. Hon. Members are quite good at going through the process, but we are not so good at reporting back to Parliament and carrying out post-legislative scrutiny. As we produce Bills, it is incumbent on us to work out how their implementation will be reported to Parliament and how we will judge their effectiveness. 
 Some Departments are better than others and I would not say the Department for Transport was the worst, but there are important concepts to consider. It is a matter of how we judge the implementation of legislation; the proposal is intended to ensure that Parliament carries out proper scrutiny of our work when the Bill is enacted. It could apply to many Acts, but as I am a member of this Committee, I propose the new clause to be added to this Bill.

John Redwood: The hon. Gentleman moved new clause 15 with admiral brevity and much perspicacity. I have pleasure in supporting new clause 16; we need Ministers to report on whether the proposal is working. Busting congestion is important and it should be measurable; we need to know how things are getting on.

Tony McNulty: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East moved the new clause with brevity and perspicacity. We will not get involved in the re-run of new clause 15, as my hon. Friend was not keen to repeat previous discussions on the matter.
 New clause 16 is otiose. It asks for an annual report from the Highways Agency about the effectiveness of the traffic officer activities outlined in part 1 of the Bill. There is already a duty on the Highways Agency to lay an annual report before the Secretary of State and Parliament, and the Committee can have the assurance that any subsequent annual report produced after the Bill receives Royal Assent will include all the proposed 
 new activities for the Highways Agency, including those involving traffic officers, that are included in the Bill. 
 In that context, I set new clause 15 to one side and say that new clause 16 is otiose, because the entirely fair point that it raises is already covered by the existing duties on the Highways Agency, which will be encompassed in that annual report.

Brian White: I accept what the Minister says, but will he accept that the relationship between the Executive and Parliament needs to be strengthened and that one way to do that is to try to ensure that future legislation contains appropriate reporting mechanisms? In view of his comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22 - Motorway hard shoulders

'No motorway hard shoulder shall be used as a running lane other than in an emergency unless the proposal has been the subject of a safety audit and the results of that audit produced.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Anne Begg: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 30—Motorway hard shoulders and bus-lanes (breakdown vehicles)—
 '(1) A breakdown vehicle operated by an accredited breakdown organisation shall be permitted— 
 (a) to use the hard shoulder of a motorway unless otherwise directed by a police officer; and 
 (b) to travel in any bus lane. 
 (2) In this section, ''breakdown vehicle'' and ''accredited breakdown organisation'' shall have the same meaning as in the Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2001.'.

Christopher Chope: The hour is late, but these are two important issues. Motoring organisations and other people involved in road safety have expressed much concern about the prospect of motorway hard shoulders being used as running lanes other than in emergencies. New clause 22 makes the common-sense proposition that that should not happen unless the proposal has been the subject of a safety audit whose results have been published.
 We know that the Government are thinking of using the M42 as the lead case for a motorway hard shoulder being used as a running lane. They are talking about quite a lot of built-in road safety provisions, but there is concern that they may be considering introducing hard shoulder running on a wider basis, without adequate regard to the need for safety. One problem with hard shoulder running is that it deprives people of a refuge if their vehicle breaks down. A significant number of fatalities each year involve people who are standing by their vehicles on the hard shoulder. We fear that that number would increase significantly if 
 the hard shoulder did not exist and was used as a running lane. I hope that the Minister will comment on our concerns. 
 The first part of new clause 30 would provide access to the hard shoulder for recovery vehicles. We hope that the Minister will accept it, because it is surely four-square in line with what the Government acknowledged in the July 1998 White Paper ''A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone''. Paragraph 3.143 stated: 
 ''We will also look for ways to give recovery vehicles, which would need to be properly accredited, higher priority in congested traffic, including allowing them to run on the hard shoulder.'' 
We now have a definition of recovery vehicles, as a result of the congestion charging legislation in London, so the new clause incorporates the aspiration that the Government expressed in the White Paper together with a workable definition. 
 The new clause also covers access by recovery vehicles to bus lanes. If the world showed some common sense, we would not need to try to legislate on that matter, but we know that there are examples of recovery vehicles attending breakdowns in bus lanes and then being subject to penalty notices. That seems farcical, but the capacity for some local authority enforcement authorities to behave in a totally irrational way knows no bounds. In the recent bad weather, there were examples of people abandoning their vehicles because it was snowing. They could not move their vehicles but penalty notices were then affixed to them. 
Brian White indicated assent.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that that absurdity happened. New clause 30 would prevent that absurdity from happening on the limited number of occasions on which recovery vehicles seek to help road users whose vehicles have broken down in bus lanes.

Paul Marsden: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to do. In principle, a vehicle that is on the hard shoulder of a motorway is a prime hazard; it must be removed as quickly as possible because it presents a danger to other vehicles. There have been well documented accidents as a result of such obstacles.
 However, I have a series of questions and I hope that the Minister can answer some of them. How would the hon. Gentleman legislate for the speed of the breakdown vehicle and the conditions under which it would be allowed to travel? It is possible that a vehicle called out through the RAC, approaching down the hard shoulder, might have to overtake a vehicle that had called out the AA. It would then have to re-enter the carriageway in order to overtake the stationary vehicle and continue on its journey to the car that had called it out. 
 Likewise, what would happen if the motorway were chock-a-block, and the breakdown vehicle moved on to the hard shoulder in order to overtake, but found in its path a car that was pulling on to it due to overheating? The last thing that the driver of the stricken car would do would be to appreciate that a vehicle might be overtaking at speed on the left hand side. He would not recognise, as he pulled over, that he could be about to create an accident. The situation would be fraught with danger, not least because the hard shoulder could also be strewn with debris. A breakdown vehicle travelling at significant speed could pose a real problem. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve. However, his laudable attempt to decrease danger by enabling vehicles to be removed from the hard shoulder quickly could create more accidents.

David Jamieson: The two new clauses seem to conflict in their ambitions. New clause 22 would seriously restrict hard shoulder running, whereas new clause 30 opens up opportunities for more vehicles to use the hard shoulder. I do not know what the logic is behind that; perhaps the new clauses were tabled on different days with no thought about co-ordination.
 New clause 30 proposes that 
 ''A breakdown vehicle operated by an accredited breakdown organisation shall be permitted . . . to use the hard shoulder of a motorway unless otherwise directed by a police officer''. 
That would permit breakdown vehicles routinely to use the hard shoulder. Such use of the hard shoulder would send the wrong message to other drivers, devaluing the purpose of the hard shoulder, and possibly leading to misuse. The circumstances in which the hard shoulder of a motorway can be used are set out in the Motorway Traffic (England & Wales) Regulations 1982, which contain a general prohibition on driving on the hard shoulder but provide for exceptions and relaxations. Those are, importantly: where permission is given by a constable; where it is necessary for a person 
''to avoid or prevent an accident or to obtain or give help required as a result of an accident or emergency'', 
or where it is necessary 
''for the removal of any vehicle from any part of a motorway''. 
Within that, the services can use the motorway hard shoulder in certain circumstances. That has been considered in some detail, and guidance, prepared by ACPO and endorsed by the Highways Agency, has been issued with regard to discretionary authorisation for access to motorway hard shoulders. One of its stipulations is that the recovery vehicle should not travel in excess of 20 mph. A careful protocol has been established. Further difficulties will need to be discussed with the motoring organisations, and we would be happy to do so if it would help to facilitate the excellent work that they do.

Christopher Chope: Can the Minister spell out exactly what has happened since the statement in the July 1998 White Paper?

David Jamieson: No, I cannot. However, I would happy to jot a line to the hon. Gentleman if it helps.
 New clause 30 suggests that breakdown vehicles operated by accredited breakdown organisations should be permitted to use bus lanes. Again, that takes us back to issues that we discussed earlier. Bus lanes are a means of giving priority to buses. Permitting more vehicles to use them will devalue their purpose. Traffic regulations orders to designate bus lanes are made by the traffic authorities, and they may include exemptions for activities that will necessarily involve other vehicles entering a bus lane, such as removing obstructions to traffic. We see no reason to give a general permission to breakdown vehicles to use bus lanes, whatever the circumstances.

Christopher Chope: I have heard what the Minister said, and I would like to discuss the points that he raised with those who are principally concerned—the organisations that provide road recovery services. All three major organisations have been concerned about the matter. Once we have had the chance to consider the Minister's comments, we may be minded to come back with something on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 23 - Badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons: enforcement

'(1) Section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c.44) (badges for display on motor vehicles used by disabled persons) is amended as follows.
 (2) After subsection (4BB) there shall be inserted—
 ''(4BC) Where there is displayed on any motor vehicle a badge which appears to a constable, traffic worden or parking attendant to purport to be, of a form prescribed under subsection (1) above, he may require—
(a) any person who appears to the constable, traffic warden or parking attendant to be, or to have been, using the vehicle; or
(b) any person in the vehicle (other than a person such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) above),
to produce the badge for examination.
 (4BD) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to produce a badge when required to do so under subsection (4BC) above shall be guilty of an offence.''
 (3) In subsection (4C), after ''(4BB)'' there shall be inserted ''or (4BC)''.'.—[Brian White.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Brian White: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I spoke only briefly to my previous amendments. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I take longer on the new clause. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) made a powerful speech on Second Reading on the subject covered by the new clause and he received reassurances from Ministers. The purpose of the new clause is to implement the Government's pledge, given in December 2002, to amend legislation on the blue badge scheme at the earliest opportunity. I tabled two amendments on the subject: one on blue badges for children, which was not accepted, and one on the enforcement of blue badges. Those who are still alert 
 at this late stage in our proceedings may see the word ''worden'' in the new clause and think that I have invented a new beast to patrol our streets, but I assure the Committee that ''worden'' should be ''warden''. 
 The only form of transport for many disabled people is the private car, in particular vehicles that have been adapted for their use. However, the ease with which they can reach their destination is always tempered by where they can park. The blue badge scheme—the national arrangement for parking concessions for the disabled—applies to a range of disabilities. About 1.8 million people hold blue badges and they are concerned about the lack of enforcement. 
 The scheme is administered by local authorities, but the biggest frustration faced by disabled drivers is the constant abuse of parking bays. The Disability Rights Commission's campaign ''Open 4 All'' said that 40 per cent. of disabled people cited the use of disabled parking spaces by non-disabled drivers as a major barrier to their gaining access to goods and services. Other concerns were expressed—of people using the badge when the badge holder is not present; of theft, vandalism and fraud; of people covering up the details on the badge; and of badge holders thinking that they are entitled to park anywhere. 
 Penalties exist, but enforcement is weakened because the police, traffic wardens and local authority parking officials do not have the power to examine the reverse of the badges. In 1999, the three-year review found that a general lack of enforcement had allowed abuse of the scheme to grow, which has devalued it. The purpose of the new clause is to allow the inspection of the reverse of the badge. 
 The Government accepted that recommendation and said that they would introduce something at the earliest opportunity. I spoke to the Minister with responsibility for disabled people. She supports my idea, as does the Minister who will respond to the debate. To a bear of little brain like me, it is a traffic management matter. As this is a traffic management Bill and the earliest opportunity to implement the idea, I ask the Minister to accept this small but essential change.

Christopher Chope: I put my name to the new clause to put on record the Opposition's support for it. I hope that the Minister can perhaps surprise the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East, and certainly please us, by accepting it. Otherwise, it makes a bit of a mockery of having reviews. There is always a limited window of opportunity for legislating afterwards. This is such a window of opportunity. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having framed his new clause so that it is properly in scope with the rest of the Bill. That cannot be said of all the new clauses. The Government have a wonderful opportunity to please the entire Committee.

Tony McNulty: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East on introducing new clause 23, which, as he says, seeks to improve the regime for the benefit not only of disabled people, but the general public. Sadly, as the review showed, there is still abuse both by people using
 badges that they should not have and by people ignorant enough to park in disabled bays. We recognise that more needs to be done to improve the enforcement regime.
 We said that we were more than happy to accept the review committee's 47 recommendations, including this one, so I am hugely sympathetic to the aims of the new clause. It is broadly in line with the provisions in Scotland. We would, however, as all Governments do, want to consider it in detail to ensure that it makes the right provision for England and Wales. My hon. Friend is entirely right: opportunities to legislate in this regard come along all too infrequently. We must ensure that when we do it, we do it in the best way possible. 
 To that end I propose to take the new clause away to consider it in that context. I assure my hon. Friend that I will come back to the issue at a later stage in the Bill's progress with something that reflects the sentiment of the new clause, but which gets what we all want in the Bill so that the enforcement provision is strengthened. It is sorely needed.

Brian White: I am sure the Minister will want to ensure that the new clause has the support of the disability rights campaigning groups, and I will discuss his comments with them. We will make representations to him to ensure that they have some input so that his new clause meets their needs. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 26 - Parliament Square

'(1) Parliament Square shall be deemed to be a strategic road for the purposes of section 56(1) of this Act.
 (2) No change in the designation of Parliament Square under subsection (1) nor reduction in vehicular carriageway width nor change in traffic-flows shall be made unless approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Greg Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause speaks for itself and I hope it commends itself to the Committee. We all know that at the beginning of every Parliament the first thing we do is to move our Sessional Orders. There is a good reason for that. Members need to ensure that they have access to and egress from the building without hindrance if they are to discharge their work as Members of Parliament properly. 
 There has been a rumour for some time that the Mayor of London would like to pedestrianise Parliament square. Last year, quite by accident, I came across a plan by some obscure architect to partially pedestrianise Parliament square under the ridiculous slogan, ''World squares for all''. The plan was not about world squares at all, but about moving traffic out and allowing pedestrians in. That may be fair enough in some parts of London, but if a partially 
 pedestrianised Parliament square impedes the speed with which hon. Members reach this place, we and the other place should at least have a say before any plans are implemented. 
 When I discovered that proposals were afoot, I raised the issue with the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but much to my surprise and his, he did not know about it. He made inquiries and indicated that he was quite concerned that if the proposals were not dealt with sensitively and sensibly, they could impede the work of Members of this place. All I am seeking to do is ensure that, if a change is proposed in future, Members of both Houses have the right to express their opinion.

Brian White: If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about speed of access to this place, why does he not do what many of us do and use the underground system, which is by far the best way to gain access?

Greg Knight: If the hon. Gentleman, who lives a very short distance away from this place, thinks that those of us whose constituencies are more than 200 miles away can always bring down all our luggage and papers on the train, carry them off the train, go to an underground station and travel for half an hour across London to get here, he needs to visit Yorkshire and places further north to see how difficult it is always to travel without using a motor car. I try to vary the modes of transport that I use to get to this place because I like using the train, but there are occasions when I need to use my car because of the documentation and luggage that I need to carry. I expect to have access to our underground car park, which was constructed for the use of hon. Members when they are going about their business.

John Mann: The right hon. Gentleman should let the train take the strain. Some of us who travel from the areas that he mentioned always go by train and find it by far the most efficient and environmentally sound way to travel.

Greg Knight: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should discover the delights of owning a classic car, because he would find that driving is not a strain.

Tony McNulty: A Metro?

Greg Knight: No, it is not a Metro.
 This is a fairly modest new clause. We should have a say if there is to be a change.

Tony McNulty: The new clause may be modest, but it is irrelevant to the Bill.

Greg Knight: The new clause is in order.

Tony McNulty: Of course the new clause is in order; that is why it was duly selected.
 There may be a conflict with Sessional Orders, and perhaps that needs exploring with regard to ingress to and egress from this place, but the Traffic Management Bill is not the place to deal with that 
 issue. What offends me most is the first provision in the new clause. Again, we see a new creature—a Stalinist centralising tendency on the part of the Conservative party. In the first instance, under clauses 56 and 57, it is for the Secretary of State, working with Transport for London through the Mayor or the other way round, to determine what the strategic road network should be in relation to the network management duty in clause 16. That is not the job of this Committee or the centralising Conservative party. The issue is, in the first instance, about the Secretary of State working with the Mayor and in co-operation with the boroughs, not least including Tory-led Westminster, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not consult fully on the new clause. I suggest that he does so. 
 The sentiment about a clash with Sessional Orders may be an issue to take up with the Leader of the House and the relevant authorities, but this is not the place to pick one street out of all the streets and roads that may form part of the strategic network in addition to TFL's network. For that reason, the new clause is otiose and unduly specific. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should seek to withdraw the motion and take up the matter of Sessional Orders and ingress and egress for his fancy Jensen with the Leader of the House, and that he should not try to squeeze that issue into the Bill.

Greg Knight: That was a very poor reply from a Minister who up to now has given the Committee detailed and comprehensive answers.
 Parliament square is unique, because it is our main access route to this building. After the next election and another 18 years of Conservative rule, followed by a Labour Government with a small majority, Labour will lose the vote because Labour Members cannot get across a pedestrianised Parliament square, and the name McNulty will be mud. I want to test the view of the Committee. 
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

John Redwood: On a point of order, Miss Begg. Will we vote on new clause 28? I should like to do so.

Anne Begg: There is a problem. We have passed that new clause by dealing with new clause 29. In addition, the wording of new clause 28 is such that if it were voted down, I could not call new clause 31, because the two are too similar.

John Redwood: They are very different, Miss Begg. One contains only one speed limit, and the other contains two. The Committee would like to put both to the vote. I urge you to let us vote on both.

Anne Begg: My judgment is that the two new clauses are similar. It is up to me to call amendments and new clauses. If new clause 28 were moved, I would not call new clause 31. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw, who tabled new clause 28, has already indicated that he does not want to press it to a vote.

John Redwood: The Committee did not give him leave to withdraw it.

Anne Begg: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw could not withdraw the new clause because it had not been moved. He indicated during the debate, however, that he was not keen to press it. We have moved past new clause 29, which means that we have also moved past new clause 28.

John Redwood: I said that I wanted the Committee to vote on new clause 28 at the point when it was originally debated.

Anne Begg: I was not aware that you did so. None the less, my decision is that I shall call new clause 31. The two clauses are sufficiently similar to mean that I should not want to call both.

David Wilshire: Further to that point of order, Miss Begg. May I suggest, in view of what has been said, that if the official Opposition retable new clause 28, on which we wish to vote, you will look sympathetically on ensuring that it is selected on Report?

Anne Begg: That is not a matter for me; it is a matter for Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that he will read the Official Report.New Clause 31 Motorways (maximum speed-limit)

New Clause 31 - Motorways (maximum speed-limit)

'The maximum speed-limit on any motorway in the absence of any other speed-restrictions is hereby raised to 80 miles per hour.'.—[Mr. Chope.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.

David Jamieson: On a point of order, Miss Begg. This has been an interesting and good-humoured Committee, and an exemplar of good scrutiny of a Bill. We had a discussion—it feels like an eternity ago, but it was only just over a fortnight ago—about whether we had sufficient time for full scrutiny. I am glad to say that with the smooth operation of the usual channels, we have had full and proper time for scrutiny of the Bill and have finished our proceedings in time, before the dates sent to us by the main Chamber of the House. At one stage, reference was made to whether traffic officers would be taking rhinoceroses off the road. The next morning, I was watching BBC television and during the weather report, the reporter had a slight slip of the tongue and said, ''Those of you going out will have to brave the elephants''. Now I know what the traffic officers will be tackling.
 In conclusion, I should like to thank the Clerks, the police, the Officers of the House and of course my own officials and others who have contributed enormously, as well as those who advise the Opposition parties—they probably have the toughest job of all. I should also like to thank you, Miss Begg, for the way in which you have chaired the Committee with your usual firmness, good grace and good humour. I hope that you can also pass on to Mr. Beard our thanks for his chairmanship of the Committee.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Miss Begg, I should like to endorse everything that the Minister said. I thank him and his ministerial team for having been very helpful to the Committee. I think that both you and Mr. Beard have presided over our proceedings with a light touch, which has enabled us to consider all the material in a good fashion. As the Minister said, it has been an exemplary way of scrutinising the Bill. I know that others would like to thank the Clerk and his assistant, who have been particularly helpful for the Opposition, because without the co-operation of the Clerk, it is often difficult to get one's ideas in order. I should also like to thank the police, the officials and the advisers. This Committee is probably notable for its record number of Divisions, and I do not think that we could have asked those responsible to shout the announcements any more loudly. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their magnificent support on the Committee; we would never really have got started without the strength of their arguments and consistent attendance.

Paul Marsden: Further to that point of order, Miss Begg. I thank you for your excellent chairmanship and Mr. Beard for his. I also pay tribute to Ministers for being extremely forthcoming and willing to answer debating points. We look forward to further stages of the Bill's consideration, when I hope that we shall explore the issues that have been exposed so far. Otherwise, this has been a good-humoured Committee.

Anne Begg: While we are on the subject of mutual congratulations, I should like to thank the Committee for being very good-humoured, which helped to speed the work through quickly.
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at one minute to Seven o'clock.